Geographical constraints on Ancient Egyptian warfare
The existence of Egypt as a coherent geographical and cultural concept is based on the interaction of the ecology of the Sahara and the Nile. The Sahara, the largest desert in the world, is capable of supporting only small foraging clans of hunters and herders. The Nile River, with its source in the rains of highland Ethiopia, transects the Sahara on its eastern edge, cutting a narrow and shallow canyon through the region (EAE 2:16–20; AAE). Before the building of the Aswan Dam the Nile flooded regularly, based on rain patterns in north-east Africa. The Nile floodplain provided a haven for animal and human life in the otherwise barren Sahara. Along with scattered oases, it is the only region in the Sahara where agriculture can flourish.1 Thus, in the words of the fifth-century BC Greek historian Herodotus, Egypt “is a gift of the [Nile] river” (Her. 2.5). Egyptian civilization flourished in the Nile valley and surrounding oases, and was intimately tied to the Nile ecology in many ways (EAE 2:543–51).
The geographical and ecological foundation that created Egypt also set the stage for Egypt's military history. Surrounded by desert and ocean, the Nile valley of Egypt formed a coherent and highly defensible military region. Egypt is separated from the southern or Nubian Nile valley by a cataract, or rapid, at Aswan, which prevents river traffic, but which is easily bypassed by overland portage. The barrier of the First Cataract formed both the geographical and the cultural boundary between Egypt and Nubia (modern northern Sudan), and Kush (modern central Sudan) to the south. The Nile floodplain in Nubia and Kush is often too narrow and rocky in many regions to permit the same degree of intensive agriculture found in Egypt. Thus, Nubia and Kush were less densely populated than Egypt, and consequently generally less powerful economically and militarily than their northern neighbor. Although there were frequent tensions and raids on the Nubian frontier, the Nubians and Kushites were able to present a serious military threat to Egypt only when it had become internally weakened or broken into several rival states.
To the east and west, the desert regions were inhabited by nomadic peoples, but the limited population levels in these regions generally prevented them from raising military forces strong enough to pose a major military threat to Egypt as a whole. They could raid and plunder, and even do significant local damage, but could not threaten the state or conquer a united Egypt. To the north, Egypt was bordered by the Mediterranean Sea. Egypt did not face major military invasion from either the western desert or by sea until the time of the Libyans and Sea Peoples in 1190 (EAE 3:257–60), and the rise of the Libyan Twenty-second Dynasty under Sheshonq in the tenth century (EAE 3:280–1). Both of these events are outside the chronological purview of this volume.
Map 4 Bronze Age Egypt and Nubia
Before the rise of the New Kingdom, therefore, Egypt faced only four potential military threats:
1. raids from the Sahara desert by Libyans;
2. the Nubian frontier beginning at Aswan, but later pushed further south;
3. the north-eastern frontier with the Sinai and Canaan;
4. internal wars when the Egyptian Nile valley was fragmented into rival states.
All of ancient Egyptian military history falls into patterns based on the shifting balance of power and fortunes of war in these four military zones of threat.
For the purposes of this study I will adopt a simplified version of the periodization schema presented in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (EAE 3:61–5) (see Table 12.1). Developments in early Neolithic Egypt are discussed in Chapter One.
Naqada I (Amratian), Middle Neolithic {4000–3500}2
Naqada (ancient Nubt), an archaeological site about 18 miles north of Luxor, was one of the most important fourth-millennium cities in Egypt, revealing a number of important early military transformations.3 A crucial development manifest at Naqada was the rise of copper working, entailing the shift between Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. Although in many respects Egypt remained a Neolithic society, with most weapons made from stone, the introduction of copper initiated a new weapons’ technology that would culminate in full-fledged Bronze Age armies in the third millennium. The search for copper also contributed to an expansionistic mentality in Egyptian society. Although some copper was accessible to Egyptians in the Eastern Desert, the most important copper sources were at Wadi Maghara in the south-west Sinai, where an estimated 100,000 tons of copper was excavated throughout antiquity (EAE 1:295). Some copper was mined by local peoples and imported into Egypt in the form of flat ingots. By the Early Dynastic period, however, Egyptians began to intervene militarily in Sinai and Nubia in an attempt to access directly or even control the sources of copper mining, along with rare prestige items such as gold from Nubia and turquoise from Sinai (see pp. 317–21).4 Thus, the increasing importance of a copper-based economy created both the demand for secure access to those resources (and hence for military intervention to control the mines), and rising military power as copper (and later bronze) became increasingly used in weapons industries (which in turn provided improved means to secure those resource centers).
|
Table 12.1 Chronological periodization for Egypt |
|||
|
Dates |
Historical period |
Tool age |
Material culture |
|
To 8500 |
Paleolithic |
||
|
8500–5500 |
Mesolithic |
||
|
Prehistoric (Pre-Dynastic) |
Badarian 5500–4000 |
||
|
5500–3150 |
Neolithic |
Amratian (Naqada I) 4000–3500 |
|
|
Gerzean (Naqada II) 3500–3150 |
|||
|
3150–2687 |
Early Dynastic |
Chalcolithic |
|
|
2687–2061 |
Old Kingdom |
“Copper Age” |
|
|
2061–1569 |
Middle Kingdom |
Bronze Age |
|
|
1589–1081 |
New Kingdom |
||
|
1081–332 |
Late Period |
Iron Age |
|
The earliest method of working copper was cold hammering; eventually smelting developed and copper came to be melted and poured into stone or ceramic molds (EAE 295). Many of the earliest surviving copper artifacts are jewelry, including pins, beads, bracelets, and rings. Cold hammered copper also began to be used for tools and weapons, including surviving examples of heavy copper axes, knives and daggers, spearheads, and projectile points (EE 43, 51, 85; FP 22–3). The latter are frequently described as “harpoon tips”, and may be associated with the royal ritual hippopotamus hunt (see pp. 313–4). However, such weapons could obviously also be used in war. Copper knives and axeheads are known to have been poured into molds, with their cutting edge created by hammering. As elite burials show, with the rise of proto-kingdoms (known by anthropologists as “chiefdoms”) at Naqada, we find a large copper axehead in Tomb 3131 (EDE 29; FP 22).
Another development in Naqada I {4000–3500}, in part associated with the search for copper, was the rise of international trade, especially with southern Canaan and the Phoenician coast. From a military perspective, the importance of international trade is reflected in three developments. First, trade brought increasing economic specialization and contributed to the rise of social elites, and eventually of military specialists. Second, trade introduced new military resources and technologies into Egypt, such as copper for weapons and the donkey for logistics. Finally, trade brought Egypt into contact with surrounding peoples, creating zones of interaction with Nubia, Libya, and Canaan, which would culminate in international military conflict.
The gold trade with Nubia appears to have begun in the Naqada I period; the ancient name for Naqada was Nubt, meaning “Gold-[town]”, with reference to its gold trade in the Eastern Desert via Wadi Hammamat. Gold – as a source of wealth and, indirectly, military power – is an important theme in Egyptian military history, and it is quite likely that part of Naqada's early wealth and military predominance was due to its access to the early gold trade.
The Naqada I period is also associated with two other social phenomena with importance for military history. Several cities in southern Egypt associated with Naqada I show an overall increase in population density – the largest towns yet discovered in Egypt during this period. Increasing agricultural surpluses and growing sedentary populations laid the manpower and resource foundations for the rise of the great protodynastic city-states which will be discussed in this chapter. Agricultural wealth could be converted into cultural predominance as well; for the first time in the Nile Valley we begin to see elements of an Egypt-wide shared material culture, as elite trade goods were transported and imitated throughout Egypt. Although Egypt still consisted politically of a number of independent proto-city-states, for the first time we can begin to speak of Egypt as a cultural entity. This process continued into the Naqada II period {3500–3150}. Finally, the egalitarian settlements of earlier periods were transformed, as control over the increasing surpluses and wealth tended to create small religious and political elites within the Egyptian proto-city-states; this process is most apparent in the building of monumental tombs adorned with rich grave goods. This is generally viewed as indicating a transition from the anthropological category of “chiefdoms” to regional city-states ruled by local independent military and hieratic elites.
Naqada II (Gerzean), Late Neolithic {3500–3150}5
As the small egalitarian peasant farming villages of the Nile valley grew and coalesced into larger confederations and city-states, evidence from burials demonstrates the rise of elites within Egyptian communities. These elites probably filled a number of different interrelated functions in society – religious, economic, and political. From the military perspective, however, the rise of elites coincides with the first manifestations of an ideology of militarism in Egyptian society – elites as warlords. The late Neolithic or Pre-Dynastic period in Egypt thus offers the first glimpses of military history. The lack of written sources during the Naqada II period prevents us from writing a full military history of this period. From archaeological and artistic evidence, however, it is possible to examine a number of military trends.
One clear indicator of rising militarism is the development of fortifications.6 Expensive and difficult to construct, fortifications are generally made only when three military criteria are present. First, there must be a serious and sustained military threat. Occasional haphazard raids are generally not serious enough to merit the large-scale investment of labor and resources necessary to build fortifications. Second, there must be a non-moveable resource of sufficient value to merit the expense of fortification. In Egypt this was the development of sedentary cities that had become centers of agriculture, population, resource collection and storage, trade, manufacture of prestige products, government, and religious shrines. The aggregation of all these valuable resources in a single non-moveable center made early Egyptian cities a magnet for potential attack, necessitating vigilant defense through fortification. Finally, a society must have a sufficient labor surplus to invest the time and resources necessary to construct fortifications. Thus, the absence of fortifications does not demonstrate an absence of warfare, but the presence of fortifications is decisive evidence for serious long-term military threat; indeed, one could argue that serious and sustained military threat must pre-date the earliest construction of fortifications. The specific nature of the earliest Egyptian fortifications will be discussed in the section on Early Dynastic Egypt, at which stage the evidence becomes more abundant (pp. 325–6). However, it is clear that fortification building in Egypt began at least during the Naqada II period, as witness the mud brick defense built at the “South Town” region of Naqada (EAE 2:494).
The development of the mace is another clear indicator of the rising importance of military power.7 Since weapons like axes and arrows have both military and non-military uses, they are not certain indicators of warfare. The mace, on the other hand, was exclusively and pre-eminently used as a weapon in archaic Egyptian warfare (BAH pl. 1). Technologically, the mace was simply a variation on the club or axe, with a heavy stone head designed for smashing rather than cutting. The earliest evidence for maces in Egypt occurs during the Naqada I period {4000–3500}. A recently discovered vase from tomb U–239 at Abydos depicts a series of warriors with pear-shaped maces herding, and perhaps dispatching, a number of prisoners (GP 79). The “Painted Tomb” (Tomb 100) from the Naqada IIc period {c. 3300} depicts a royal figure standing in a boat with a mace (GP 79). Early maces took two forms: disk-like (mnw) or conical, and pear-shaped (hd); the latter became the predominant form of the weapon.8 By the late Naqada II period maces had become the pre-eminent symbol of kingship and military power. A large number of Pre-Dynastic maces have been discovered in tombs, and as votive gifts to the gods in temples, especially at the “Main Deposit” at the Hierakonpolis temple. Iconographically, Pre-Dynastic Egyptian kings are generally depicted carrying maces as the royal weapon, often in the famous “smiting” stance that was to be the norm in Egyptian royal martial iconography for the next three thousand years (Figure 8, p. 318; MB; PSE). Several maces are carved with scenes of the rituals of kingship that will be discussed on p. 316. Archaeologists have also discovered elegant flint knives (EE 43; AW 1:115), flint projectile points, and a copper harpoon point, presumably used for the ritual hippopotamus hunt (EE 51; EDE 216–17).
Figure 8 The “Narmer Palette”, Hierakonpolis, Egypt {c. 3040} Source: Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG14716; drawing by Michael Lyon.
Although no detailed written records survive, the names of several legendary kings of the period are associated with the falcon war-god Horus, emphasizing their military prowess: “Horus Fights”, “Horus Siezes”, “Horus Decapitates” (ECI 24). The combination of archaeological and artistic evidence provides us with a broad outline of military trends during the Naqada II period. These include the spread of agriculture throughout the Nile valley, the development of increasingly large settlements, increasing contact between various regions of Egypt, and the slow adoption of a similar material culture throughout the Nile valley. During this period Egypt was divided into two major cultural regions that persist in varying degrees throughout its ancient history: Upper (southern) and Lower (northern) Egypt. Politically and militarily, Egypt was further subdivided into a number of independent city-states, laying the foundation for the later “nomes” or provinces of Egypt.
In the late fourth millennium BC, evidence exists indicating steady expansion of the material culture (pottery and other artifacts) of the Naqada II peoples from the south into the north. It is unclear if this transition of material culture was caused by trade, peaceful migration, or conquest – or, most likely, a combination of all three. Certain sites, by fortune of geography, had superior access to trade routes and rare natural resources, which both facilitated the rise of internal elites, and provided a basis for potential military power over rival neighboring city-states. Economic competition between these city-states eventually took on military aspects, with weaker cities being exploited and eventually absorbed into larger proto-states.
Artistic sources for Late Pre-Dynastic {3500–3150} military history
Martial art provides an important source for understanding warfare in late Pre-Dynastic Egypt. The “Painted Cloth” from a tomb in Gebelein depicts the king in a martial stance harpooning a hippopotamus as part of a ritual hunt symbolizing the power of the king over the forces of chaos (EDE 33; EDE 216). The Hierakonpolis “Painted tomb” (tomb 100) shows a number of scenes of hunting, herding, and religious rituals, but includes three depictions of combat.9 In the first (lower right) a soldier wearing an animal-skin jacket and armed with a javelin and knife fights another man with an animal-skin shield. Nearby a similarly-armed man has defeated a fallen enemy. Finally, in the lower left, the king with upraised mace in the archetypal smiting posture prepares to execute three kneeling captured prisoners.
The most detailed Pre-Dynastic artistic scene of battle is the Gebal el-Araq knife handle.10 Here nine warriors in loincloths engage in various stages of hand-to-hand combat. Some warriors have their heads shaved, while others have long hair, apparently indicating hairstyles of the rival tribes. The scene is divided into four registers; in the upper register two soldiers armed with maces and flint knives grapple with one another. One longhaired warrior has been captured by a shaven-headed mace-wielding foe. The lower two panels show a flotilla of riverboats interspersed with corpses of slain enemies, perhaps indicating the post-combat slaughter of prisoners. This is also the first clear evidence of naval combat on rivers.
The “Hunter's Palette” is also a rich source for understanding Pre-Dynastic warfare.11 The scene probably depicts a great hunt rather than actual combat. However, since kings can be depicted by their tribal totems in Pre-Dynastic art, it may symbolically represent combat.12 For this discussion it will be assumed that, even if the scene depicts a pure hunting expedition, the military and hunting equipment and techniques overlapped during this period. Indeed, the palette may represent a military unit hunting while on campaign. From the military perspective we see the soldiers are all similarly dressed, wearing kilts, with some type of animal tail in the rear as adornment. Most warriors also have ostrich feathers in their hair. None carries a shield or any type of chest or leg protection. However, since the Painted Tomb demonstrates that both animal-skin jackets and shields were used in Egypt during this period, their lack of representation here may indicate that such items were not used in hunting. Most of the men in the lower column carry some type of bundle on their backs, probably a bag of supplies. The palette depicts two columns of warriors encircling antelopes, rabbits, and two lions, probably implying the use of flanking tactics. Both columns have a man with a Horus banner near the front. The upper column consists of twelve men, the lower of seven (two of whom are largely lost in a missing piece of the palette); most of the men are double-armed. Their weaponry includes: bow alone (1); bow with three arrows (1); banner with mace (1); banner and double-headed axe (1); mace and throwing stick (1); spear and fighting stick (3); spear with axe (1); bow with mace (3); spear and mace (1); lasso (2); bow with double-headed axe (1); two spears and fighting stick (1); bow and perhaps another weapon on the lost fragment (1); unknown, due to lost fragment (1). In total the nineteen men are armed with seven bows, six maces, six spears, five fighting sticks, two double-headed axes, two lassos and one axe. The presence of a man with two spears may indicate that the spears could also be thrown. Nearly all the men are thus armed with both some type of missile weapon (bow, fighting stick, and perhaps javelin), and some type of melee weapon (mace, axe, spear).
A fifth source of military information for the Naqada II period is the “Battlefield Palette”.13 This scene depicts the aftermath of the battle. In the upper register – which is fragmentary – at least three captive enemies, stripped naked with their arms bound behind their backs, are marched off the battlefield by totem standards symbolizing the victorious clans. In the lower register six enemy corpses, limbs akimbo, lie naked on the battlefield, being eaten by vultures and a lion. One of the corpses, whose eye is being eaten by a carrion bird, has his arms bound behind his back, indicating that at least some of the prisoners were executed or sacrificed after the battle.
Thus, although no precise dates, battles, or commanders can be given, the combination of several lines of convergent evidence – fortifications, elite tombs, war maces, and martial iconography – indicates that city-state-sponsored militarism had become widespread in Egypt during the Naqada II period. This process would culminate in the rise of competing regional kingdoms in southern Egypt in the Naqada III period {3150–3050}, and the military unification of Egypt around 3050.
Naqada III (Proto-Dynastic, Dynasty “O”) {3150–3050}14
Intelligible military history of Egypt begins with wars between rival city-states of southern Egypt around 3150.15 The sparse protohistorical evidence for this period – consisting of a few single-word inscriptions of king's names and iconographic representations of royal rituals and warfare – makes any interpretation of events ambiguous and dubious at best. The following reconstruction is necessarily speculative. Although the military aspects of the unification of Egypt will be the focus of attention here, it must be emphasized that this process undoubtedly included a combination of peaceful activities such as developing cultural and economic bonds, political marriages, alliances, etc.
By around 3150 southern Egypt – for which we have the most documentation in the Pre-Dynastic period – was divided into at least four independent states: Naqada (Nubt), Abydos (This), Hierakonpolis (Nekhen), and Qustul (Ta-Sety) in northern Nubia (Sudan) (M= HAAE 22–3). Each had access to trade routes for gold, stone, copper, or other important resources (EDE 36–41). The thirty-second century was one of increasing competition between these and other rival city-states. As one proto-kingdom absorbed another, its military resources concomitantly expanded, making it increasingly difficult for rivals to defeat, thus creating a type of snowball effect. This period of military competition and expansion culminated in the unification of all Egypt under Narmer, to be discussed on pp. 318–20.
The wars of unification of Egypt began with a three-way struggle between the confederations of Abydos, Naqada, and Hierakonpolis. Around 3125, king Uj16 of Abydos was buried in the largest monumental tomb yet built in Egypt. It is often assumed that Uj had expanded his kingdom from Abydos, to the north, thereby becoming the dominant power in Middle Egypt. The extra resources obtained by this expansion permitted him to construct his monumental tomb. At the same time in the south, the kingdom of Hierakonpolis emerged victorious over the rival kings of Naqada, whose lineage disappears around 3100, probably indicating conquest by Hierakonpolis (EDE 47–8). Thus, by about 3075 two major powers had emerged in middle and southern Egypt: king Scorpion of Hierakonpolis and Uj's successor, king Ka of Abydos. These rivals soon became enmeshed in a struggle for domination of Egypt.
King Scorpion {3085?–3060?}17
Scorpion is known largely from the ritual scene depicted on the ceremonial “Scorpion Mace” found at a temple in his capital of Hierakonpolis.18 The overall ceremonial context depicted on the mace-head is uncertain, but perhaps involved the ritual opening of irrigation canals, the foundation of a temple, or the heb-sed festival. From the military perspective the upper register is the most important. It depicts a row of captured enemy banners, from each of which hangs a dead lapwing bird. This is generally thought to depict the conquests of Scorpion, or his immediate predecessors. Included among the conquered banners is the bow symbol of Nubia, probably indicating a campaign to the south of the first cataract. One can conclude from this that there was ongoing warfare during Scorpion's reign, with substantial military success against his rivals.
Ka {3075–3050?} (EDE 57–8)
Scorpion of Hierakonpolis’ great military rival was king Ka of Abydos. Seals bearing Ka's name have been discovered in the north-eastern delta. Although they could have been introduced into the area by traders, the seals may indicate some type of military intervention and perhaps the beginning of the conquest of the delta by the kings of Abydos. At some point, perhaps around 3060, Ka seems to have defeated Scorpion (or his immediate successor) and conquered his kingdom in southern Egypt. This left Ka with only one serious rival in the Nile Valley, the Nubian kings of Ta-Sety (Qustul) {3200–3000}.19 The existence of the Pre-Dynastic Nubian kingdom of Ta-Sety in northern Sudan was virtually unknown until excavations carried out in the late 1960s and 1970s. These revealed a cemetery with about a dozen royal burials, rulers of a powerful Pre-Dynastic kingdom that was the equal and competitor of contemporary kingdoms in Egypt. Although there are a few tentative proto-hieroglyphs, written texts are lacking, making a precise reconstruction impossible. None the less, Ta-Sety shared many elements of military technology and royal military ideology with its Egyptian rivals.
As with all Pre-Dynastic Egyptian history, the details of the struggle between Ka of Abydos and the kings of Ta-Sety cannot be recovered. It appears that Ka campaigned south to the Second Cataract in Nubia, defeating the kingdom of Qustul, as memorialized by the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman monument in Nubia, which depicts a boat – presumably used for military transport – surrounded by slaughtered and captured enemies, along with proto-hieroglyphic signs of the conquered cities of Ta-Sety.20 There is also slight evidence of a possible campaign into southern Canaan (EDE 51). By his death around 3050 Ka had conquered his major military rival at Hierakonpolis and unified all Egypt south of the delta into a single kingdom. He had probably begun the conquest of the north-eastern delta as well. The completion of his conquests of unification was to fall to his son Narmer, who founded the First Dynasty of Egypt.
Early Dynastic Egypt {3050–2687}
Sources for the military history of the Early Dynastic period are quite sparse, allowing only an uncertain reconstruction of broad patterns. None the less, there is a substantial increase of data when compared with the Pre-Dynastic period. The sources for the military history of Early Dynastic Egypt can be divided into six categories, in order of importance:
1. rock-cut victory stele;
2. annals (principally the Palermo Stone);21
3. military art;
4. archaeological remains of weapons and fortifications;
5. seals or other name inscriptions possibly representing the authority of the pharaoh in a particular region; and
6. later martial legends collected by Herodotus, Manetho, Diodorus, and other Classical historians.22
Each of these categories of evidence is fragmentary and ambiguous, creating a number of difficulties in historiographical interpretation. Although I will not endlessly use the adverb “probably”, its presence should be ubiquitously assumed.
First Dynasty (Thinite) {3050–2850}23
Narmer/Menes {3050–3025?}24
Later Egyptian legend, as transmitted by the Greeks, viewed Menes as the first human ruler of Egypt who “built the city which is now called Memphis”.25 This legendary Menes is frequently identified by many scholars with Narmer, the first king of the First Dynasty.26 The famous “Narmer Palette” shows the king – overshadowed by the falcon war-god Horus, who granted victory in battle – wearing the White and Red Crowns of both Upper and Lower Egypt (EAE 1:321–6). Narmer is depicted defeating his enemies, ritually smiting a prisoner with his mace, marching in triumph among the corpses of his enemies whose decapitated heads are placed between their legs, and capturing rival cities (symbolized by a bull smashing through city walls).27 The symbolism of the king-as-bull is also found in the Pyramid Texts (PT 205, 409, 474, 572), in a passage which may well be describing the same mythic scenario as that depicted on the Narmer Palette. “King is the Bull … the King has united the heavens, the King has power over the southern and northern lands … the King has built the city of the god [Memphis?] in accordance with its proper due” (PT 319). The Narmer Palette, celebrating Narmer's military victories and prowess, is often seen as a memorial of his military unification of Egypt. At the very least, it symbolizes the ritual military prowess and activities that Egyptian kings wished to memorialize (DAE 196). Two mace heads from roughly the time of Narmer celebrate bearded captives bearing tribute to the king (EWA 5–6; FP 161).
Another memorial often associated with Narmer's campaigns is the “Cities Palette”, which may depict a king's conquest of the north-west delta and Libya, with seven cities symbolically represented by walled enclosures surrounding proto-hieroglyphs for city names. Animals from tribal or city banners – representing military units – are depicted digging through the mud-brick city walls with hoes, symbolizing their assault and conquest of enemy cities. The opposite side of the palette shows rows of cattle, donkeys, and goats, probably representing the plunder from the expedition.28
The new unified domain of all of Egypt established by Narmer and his successors was consolidated by the creation of a new capital at Memphis, originally called Ineb Hedj (inbw-hd), or “White Fortress”.29 The construction of this fortress as the symbolic act of the primordial unification of Egypt was remembered as a fulfillment of a divine commission in later theological texts. The Shabaqa Stone explains that the king as personified by the war god Horus “stood over the land. He is the uniter of this land.… He is Horus who arose as king of Upper and Lower Egypt, who united the Two Lands in the Nome of the Wall.… There [at Memphis] was the royal fortress built at the command of [the god] Geb” (AEL 1:53). Defended by a massive mud brick wall and strategically located at the apex of the Nile delta, Memphis controlled communications and trade between southern and northern Egypt, allowing the rapid transportation of troops and supplies anywhere in the Nile valley. Memphis thus became both a symbol of the new united kingdom, as well as a practical means of militarily enforcing that unity.30 By about 3025 Narmer's united Egypt stretched from Aswan to the Mediterranean, creating the first trans-city-state kingdom in world history. During the ensuing First Dynasty, we begin to see written language, professional administration, centralized kingship, the extension of irrigation and agriculture, mining, monumental architecture, and increasing wealth and social stratification. From the military perspective Narmer's Egypt had become the most powerful state in the world.
While the unification of Egypt solved the problem of military struggle between competing city-states in the Nile Valley that had characterized Egypt in the Pre-Dynastic period, it created new external military problems. The cultural and ethnic unity of the new state did not extend beyond the geographical boundaries of the Nile Valley, leaving three potential external enemies: Nubians to the south, Libyans to the west, and Sinai nomads and Canaanites to the east. Having completed the conquest and subjection of the independent Egyptian city-states begun by his father Ka, Narmer appears to have undertaken external campaigns against Libya and southern Palestine to secure those frontiers.31
Seals of king Narmer have been found at Arad, indicating that at the very least trade was occurring with Egypt. Given the fact that, for Egyptians of this period, trade, exploration, and military action were intrinsically intertwined, it is not impossible that Narmer may have campaigned in the region, establishing hegemony over Arad in southern Canaan.32 The massive fortifications of Arad were first built in Stratum II (3000–2800), probably at least partly in response to Egyptian military threat (EA 1:169). Narmer's external campaigns may be vaguely remembered in the later legends that Menes “reigned for thirty years, and advanced with his army beyond the frontiers of his realm, winning renown by his exploits” (Man. 33).
Narmer's successors {3025–2965}
Records of the military exploits of Narmer's first four successors, if any occurred, have not been well preserved. Seals with the name of Aha {3025–3000?},33 Narmer's son, have not been found in southern Palestine, leading some to speculate concerning a possible decline of the Egyptian presence there – though this may simply represent the vagaries of survival and discovery. Two labels, however, depict campaigns, one showing the execution of a bearded enemy (EWA 8), the other recording a campaign by Aha against the Nubians (Ta-Sety) (EDE 178; AE 51). Djer (Zer) {3000–2977?}34 is noted for an expedition to Palestine,35 – perhaps to shore up the decline of Egyptian influence there during the reign of his father – as well as a victory over the Libyans.36 Djer's son Djet {2977–2965?} had only a brief reign, leaving his young son Den under the regency of Djer's wife Merneith – the first woman known to have ruled Egypt as regent.37 Evidence of military activities during Djet's reign and the subsequent regency of his mother has not survived.
Den {2965–2915}38
Den was the second great martial king of the First Dynasty, “the preponderance of entries [in the annals of the Palermo Stone] from the reign of Den referring to military activity is particularly striking” (PS 245). Den was a long-lived ruler who during his fifty-year reign celebrated two sed festivals (DAE 256) – religious rituals of recoronation for the renewal of kingship. His military efforts were focused on the eastern desert and Canaan, commemorated by five decorative ivory panels. The most important, from a tomb in Abydos, shows the king smiting a cowering Easterner, and reads “the first time of the smiting of the east [by king Den]”.39 Others depict the destruction of fortified cities in Canaan, symbolized by a hoe breaking through a symbolic city wall surrounding the name of an enemy (EDE 156). These, or related expeditions, are also recorded in the Palermo Stone, which preserves accounts of three campaigns against Canaan over a fourteen-year period, describing the “smiting of the bowmen (sqr ’Iwntiw),” referring to tribes to the northeast of Egypt (PS 106, 242). The exact referent of the campaign against the “dog-[like] people” is uncertain, but probably refers to the ongoing wars with southern Palestine as well (PS 244–5). Another entry may describe the “sailing downstream [north] by boat … and smiting of [the city] Werka” (PS 116). This brief statement highlights the importance of river transportation in Nile Valley warfare. Part of Den's royal titles included Khasty ( h3sti), with a determinative sign for “foreign desert”, perhaps alluding to a campaign into the Sinai or Negev (PS 245). If so, this would anticipate the later practice of Roman emperors taking the triumphal titles of enemies or regions they had conquered. Given this emphasis of military effort, southern Canaan may have come under direct rule of Egypt during at least part of Den's reign (ECI 29–37).
Last kings of the First Dynasty {2915–2850?}
Records of military activities for the last three kings of the First Dynasty are sparse. Enedjib {2925–2900?} and Semerkhet (Semsem) {2890–2880?} made no recorded campaigns.40 The last king, Ka'a {2880–2850?}, has an ivory rod depicting a bound nomad, which is possibly commemorative of a campaign into the Sinai or southern Canaan.41 Thus, by the end of the First Dynasty, the basic strategic patterns associated with later Egyptian military history had already been established. Military activities focused on attacking enemies of Egypt residing in southern Canaan, Libya, and Nubia, either as punitive expeditions, plundering raids, or to defend trade and mining operations. Dealing with potential threats from these three frontiers would be a strategic constant throughout Egyptian military history.
Second Dynasty {2850–2687}42
Origins of the Second Dynasty {2850–2790}
Although the details of the transition between First and Second Dynasties are obscure, it seems to have been relatively peaceful. A possible attempt at usurpation by the shadowy Horus-Ba is speculated, but the first king of the Second Dynasty, Hetepsekhemwy, oversaw the burial rituals of the last king of the First Dynasty, Ka'a, indicating a regular transition of legitimacy (EDE 82–3). The history of the Second Dynasty is rather obscure, with a number of kings known only by name.
Hetepsekhemwy and Ranebi
Except for the reigns of kings Ninuter and Khasekhemwy, military events of this period are difficult to reconstruct. Hetepsekhemwy {2850–2820} is not credited with any military activities (EDE 83–4; AE 91–2), while a stele found on the desert road near Armant indicates his successor Ranebi (Nebra) {2820–2790} undertook an expedition of some sort – perhaps with a military component – to the Kharga oasis in the Western Desert (EDE 84; AE 92–3).
Ninuter
The only known military campaign of Ninuter (Ninetjer) {2790–2754} is described in the Palermo Stone for year 13 {2777}: “hacking up [the place] Shem-Ra; hacking up [the place] Ha”.43 Neither of these sites can be precisely identified. It has been speculated that Ha, meaning “North”, refers to a location in the delta, and this campaign was to suppress rebellion there, which is certainly possible (EDE 85; AE 93).
It is also possible that Shem-Ra and Ha/“North” are references to southern Canaan, where archaeological evidence shows that the stone walls of the city of Arad were breached and the city sacked and burned at the end of Stratum III {c. 2800}.44 It is possible that a rival Canaanite city-state, or even nomads, could have been responsible for the sacking of Arad around this time. But the city's massive fortifications – a 1700-meter circuit of mud-brick walls 2.5-meters thick on stone foundations, defended by several dozen projecting towers – indicate that only a determined and powerful enemy could have taken the city by assault. Given the repeated military activity of Egypt in southern Canaan, one is tempted to conclude that Arad had built its massive fortifications in defense against Egyptian incursions, but was ultimately destroyed by the Egyptians. Chronologically, the rough archaeological dating of the fall of Arad to 2800 fits into the mid-Second Dynasty in Egypt, and early in the reign of Ninuter.45 If the Egyptians did conquer Arad, they were not able to maintain control over the region for long; the walls of Arad were rebuilt in subsequent years, which might correspond to the period of Egyptian weakness and turmoil that followed Ninuter.
Ninuter was succeeded by several obscure kings, Wadjnas (Weneg), Senedy, and possibly Nubnefer {2754–2734?}, for whom we have no recorded campaigns. It has been suggested that the succession to Ninuter was contested, and Egypt entered a period of civil strife with rival kings, which culminated in the civil war between Peribsen and Khasekhemwy (EDE 87–9).
Peribsen
The known military activities of Peribsen {2734–2714}46 are based on several brief inscriptions in which he claims to be “conqueror of Canaan” and “conqueror of foreign lands”.47 Another small seal from the period mentions an “administrator of the foreign land”, pointing to some type of officer in charge of foreign areas (EWA 24). Additionally, however, Peribsen is a unique king in Egyptian history, the only native Egyptian to have been associated with the chaos-god Seth (EAE 3:269–71; DAE 264–5). This is often interpreted to reflect a religio-political revolution of some sort during his reign, in which Egypt was split into rival factions or even separate kingdoms supporting the traditional Horus kings against the upstart radical Seth king Peribsen.48 Details of any military activities associated with this conflict are unknown, but the struggle culminated in a civil war during the succeeding reign of Khasekhemwy.
Khasekhemwy {2714–2687}49
The military activities of Khasekhemwy are well documented by Early Dynastic standards. Due to the strife engendered by Peribsen's “Seth rebellion”, during the early part of Khasekhemwy's reign he ruled only in southern Egypt with his capital at Hierakonpolis. The exact chronology and relative order of campaigns in his reign is unclear, but in the “year of the fighting the northern enemy” he defeated the “rebels” in the north (AE 100; EDE 91), a probable reference to the Seth king Peribsen. This delta campaigns culminated in claims of killing “47,209 northern enemies” (AE 99, MB 128, 216, TEM 45; EDE 92), a number often thought to be an exaggeration. But, exaggerated or not, it is clear that Khasekhemwy succeeded in reunifying Egypt after the troubled reign of Peribsen. Following the reunification, Khasekhemwy undertook the “humbling of foreign lands” as well (AE 100; EDE 92). Nubia was invaded, and the fragmentary remains of an inscription at a temple in Hierakonpolis list foreign countries which were apparently defeated, while another inscription mentions an office of “overseer of foreign lands”, indicating that some type of direct Egyptian control may have been established outside the Nile valley (EDE 92). Maritime trade to Byblos was also renewed (EDE 92). Khasekhemwy's walls surrounding his tomb complex at Hierakonpolis provide some of the best evidence from the period for the design of fortifications. Khasekhemwy's victories, combined with a thriving economy and intense cultural and religious activity, laid the foundation for the rise of the Old Kingdom, which his son Djoser {2687–2668} was to found (see p. 329).
The Early Dynastic Egyptian military system
Organization
Only the faintest hints survive concerning Egyptian military organization in the Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic periods. The Early Dynastic Egyptians had a large and well-organized bureaucracy – 10,000 graves of government officials from this period have been discovered at subsidiary non-royal cemeteries near the capital Memphis (EDE 109–49). This did not necessarily translate, however, into a permanent military bureaucracy or standing army. Specific military duties and responsibilities were generally organized on an ad hoc basis. Officials could have concurrent economic, ceremonial, religious, administrative, and military responsibilities. This is illustrated by the most detailed funerary inscription from the Early Dyanstic period, that of of Merka {2850?} from Saqqara (EDE 148–9, AE 92). A member of the extended royal family, Merka's offices included priest, governor of the Hare-nome, “follower of the king” – probably courtier – and “comptroller of the palace.” Militarily he was “district administrator of the desert,” which seems to have involved security of the frontier.
The state organized a vast system of taxation, collection, storage, manufacturing, and redistribution of food, goods and equipment, creating an unprecedented logistical foundation for military activities, one that was absent in all of Egypt's nearby military rivals during this period. Combined with its vast wealth from agricultural surplus, gold, and trade, Egypt had a significant military advantage over all her potential enemies.
Military expeditions – led by a “commander of the expedition” – were often not solely military in purpose, but rather combined exploration, trading, resource exploitation, and military functions. Titles such as “controller of the desert” or “keeper of the Canaanites” probably point to regional military frontier commanders, while the “overseer of the foreign land” was apparently the military governor of Sinai or southern Canaan (EDE 134, 143–4, 149).
Arms and armor50
Although we lack any detailed combat narratives from this period, we have a number of surviving weapons and combat scenes preserved in military art that provide us with a basic understanding of Egyptian military equipment. Generally speaking, Egyptian warriors are depicted as wearing a kilt, with no helmet or shield, nor any armor for chest or lower legs. The major exception to this is found in the “Painted Tomb” which shows warriors wearing animal-skin jackets and carrying a shield of animal skin (EE 36–7; AW 1:117). Melee weapons depicted in contemporary art include fighting sticks, clubs, stone-headed maces, axes, double-headed axes, spears, and daggers.
Missile weapons included bows and arrows, throwing sticks (broadly similar to boomerangs; LA 6:1299–300), and javelins. The bow during this period was relatively small, with light arrows averaging slightly under 50 cm in length; hundreds were found in leather quivers from a tomb at Saqqara. The short arrows indicated a limited draw capacity for the bows, and hence limited penetrating power. The arrows include a number of different styles with different-shaped arrow-heads made from agate, bone, and ivory; some lack fletching (AE 113–14; FP 42). The bow was also a royal weapon, as indicated by a late Second Dynasty {2700?} fragmentary temple relief from Gebelein depicting the king in martial stance carrying a bundle of four arrows in his right hand – his left hand, missing from the relief, probably held a bow (EWP 39). The mace seems to have been the preferred melee weapon, with numerous depictions of the king using it to ritually slaughter his enemies.51
Throughout most of the Early Dynastic period most arrow and spear-heads, axes, maces and daggers continued to be made from stone (FP 49–50; AW 1:11; TEM 29, 39). A number of copper axes and daggers survive from tomb excavations, but these were probably expensive weapons of the elite that were rarely found in the hands of the ordinary soldiers. Although the fundamental military technology of the Early Dynastic period remained Neolithic, the importance and number of copper weapons increased steadily throughout the period. Copper axes are especially prominent, with fewer daggers (EE, 85). Copper axes are found in a number of Early Dynastic burials, with an especially large hoard of copper weapons and tools from the reign of Djer {3000–2975?} (EDE 72). The search for copper also probably stimulated Egyptian military activities outside the Nile Valley. Copper sources exploited in the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdoms were found in the Eastern Desert, Sinai, and northern Nubia, each of which were zones of known Egyptian military intervention in the Early Dynastic period. The discovery of copper smelting at the Early Dynastic level at the Buhen fortification in northern Nubia demonstrates the increasing importance of copper exploitation and trade in Egyptian relations with Nubia (DAE 71). Khasekhemwy {2714–2687}, the last king of the Second Dynasty, is noted for two developments in metallurgy with military significance. He is the first Egyptian king known to have built a copper statue of himself (PS 133), which would indicate that although copper was now becoming relatively plentiful, it was still rare enough to warrant special attention in the royal annals when a statue was made of that metal. Second, the oldest surviving examples of bronze-working in Egypt – two ritual vessels found in a tomb (EAE 1:417b) – date to his reign. Thus, although Egypt could be said to have entered the Bronze Age around 2700 BC, in reality most weapons continued to be made of stone, and thus Early Dynastic Egypt was, practically speaking, a militarily Neolithic state.
Fortifications and siegecraft
Although the archaeological remains of Early Dynastic fortifications are sparse, there is sufficient evidence to show a great deal of sophisticated military engineering (EAE 2:552–9). The ongoing wars for domination within Egypt led to expanding fortification of all major cities in Egypt with increasingly massive mud-brick walls.52 Memphis was the greatest fortress of the age, but no remains of the walls have been discovered from this period. The only surviving remains of an Early Dynastic Egyptian fortress are at Elephantine, fortifying the Nubian border. This had large, thick mud-brick walls with semi-circular projecting bastions, square towers on the corners and a fortified gate (AEA 80). In addition, it is often assumed that funerary enclosures and outer temple and palace walls paralleled the basic architecture of fortifications. The enclosure wall of Shunet el-Zebib at Abydos, and the tombs of Khasekhemwy {2714–2687} and queen Neithhotep {3000?} are well preserved.53 The remains of some palace walls may reflect military architectural features as well (EE 58, 72–3). Hieroglyphic symbols for cities show a fortress wall with square projecting towers surrounding a glyph with the city name.54 The importance of fortifications is emphasized by the ritual “circumambulation of the [city] wall” at Memphis, which was undertaken as part of the coronation ceremony of the kings.55
En Besor, in southern Palestine, was a small fortified Egyptian way station on the route to Palestine, protecting an important spring for merchants and armies crossing the Sinai (EAE 1:552–9). Art from the period depicts stylized representations of square fortresses with projecting towers. Little can be said of Early Dynastic siegecraft, but it is clear that fortresses were captured on a regular basis. Military palettes show animals – probably clan totems – assaulting the walls of cities with large triangular Egyptian hoes, presumably representing the undermining of mud-brick walls (EE 53; AW 1:122–3). As noted on p. 319, brief historical inscriptions also make mention of “assaulting” various towns, which may be a generic term for any type of siege.
The fragmentary “Cities (or Libyan) Palette”, which depicts seven cities with mud-brick walls and towers being assaulted by armies represented by animals of their clan or nome totems, such as a scorpion, lion, and falcon. These animal totems wield large Egyptian agricultural hoes to undermine and destroy the brick walls of the besieged towns. As described above, it probably memorializes the Egyptian conquest of the north-western delta and parts of the Libyan desert during the Protodynastic period or the early First Dynasty {3100–3000}. Presumably, with enough time and manpower, the unbaked mud-brick walls of Early Dynastic fortifications could be undermined and breached, either forcing the city to surrender or permitting an assault to take the city by storm.
Naval warfare56
The importance of the Nile in the Egyptian economy and culture was associated with the very early use of river craft in Egypt. The earliest vessels seem to have been either canoes made of skins, or skiffs made of papyrus bundles; models indicate that such boats were in use by at least the Badarian period {5500–4000} (EBS 11). There are a number of artistic representations of Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynasty boats.57 Most of these are in the context of either religious and royal processions, or the transport of gods or the soul of the king to the other world. These illustrations demonstrate that the Egyptians used multiple oars – one boat having twenty-two oars on one side (GP 154) – and a rudder; sails also appear by at least late Naqada II {c. 3200}.58
There are, however, two early illustrations of possible naval combat. The first is the Gebel el-Araq knife handle, which depicts boats in the background of combat by rival armies.59 The second is from the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman monument from the Second Cataract in Nubia, which depicts a boat surrounded by corpses and bound prisoners (EDE 176–9; EBS 20). These sources, along with the Palermo Stone (PS 116), show that the transport of armies by river occurred from the very beginning of Egyptian military history; they may also illustrate the earliest actual combat aboard ships. Although a river war fleet was a crucial element in Early Dynastic Nile military power, there is no evidence of a permanent naval organization. Rather, it seems, ships were commandeered or even built as needed to serve the immediate transport and logistic requirements of the army. Naval warfare could have consisted of exchanges of missile fire as well as boat-to-boat combat; one of the figures by the boat in the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman monument has been pierced by an arrow.
Sea-going vessels are also attested to in the Early Dynastic Period, though the first recorded example of the military use of sea vessels dates to the Old Kingdom. Sea trade with Phoenician coastal cities is found as early as the Naqada II period {3500–3150}, with Byblos being especially important (EAE 1:219–21). Khasekhemwy {2714–2687} is the first king who included shipbuilding activities as a major event in his royal annals (PS 134–5 = ARE 1:64). Since artistic evidence demonstrates that Egyptians had various types of river craft for centuries, Khasekhemwy's emphasis on shipbuilding in his annals is generally associated with the sea trade to Byblos, where a stone vessel with his name was also discovered, confirming such contacts (EDE 92, 160).
By the end of the Early Dynastic period {2687} we find naval technology already being quite developed, including wooden ships with rudders propelled by multiple oars and sails. Sea-going vessels could make round-trip journeys of at least 500 miles to Byblos, and could probably go much further. In the Old Kingdom this maritime technology would be transformed into the ability to project military power hundreds of miles across the sea.
Treatment of prisoners
Iconography repeatedly shows the ritual slaughter of prisoners of war.60 The upper register of the Battlefield Palette (EE 54, EWP 29) depicts naked prisoners of war being marched in procession. They are bound with their arms pinioned behind their backs at the elbows, a technique that appears repeatedly throughout subsequent Egyptian military art. The lower register shows the bodies of dead warriors being eaten by carrion birds and a lion. Importantly, the lower right section depicts a bound corpse being eaten by a bird, indicating that the scene shows not only the corpses of military casualties left on the battlefield, but bound prisoners who were executed after capture.