Читать книгу A History of Ancient Egypt - Marc Van De Mieroop - Страница 57

Egypt stands out among early states in world history. In most other cases – but not all (Trigger 2003 : 104–113) – political entities incorporating limited territories, usually a city and its surroundings, for long periods of time preceded the existence of the territorial state. In contrast, almost as soon as the state arose in Egypt there was a unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, a vast territory. Why did the evolution there lead almost immediately to a territorial state?

Over the years scholars have formulated many explanations under the influence of various ideological and intellectual trends (cf. Hendrickx 2014 ). Early investigators, inspired by European ideals of historic progress through imperialism, thought that an outside force was responsible. A “dynastic race” arrived from the north and unified Egypt by conquest – archaeologists thought they could even identify their skeletons in Early Dynastic cemeteries (as discussed by Bard 1994 : 1–5). The Egyptian visual evidence suggested otherwise, however. The Narmer Palette and similar objects showed that Egyptians defeated other Egyptians. For a long time historians thought that at first two separate kingdoms (Upper and Lower Egypt) existed, becoming one at the start of Egypt’s historical period. They disagreed on what kingdom was victorious and what king accomplished the unification. Inspired by later mythology, some thought that the Delta subdued the Nile Valley (Sethe 1930 : 70–78); more believed that the south conquered the north. Much discussion revolved around who was the first to unite the two countries. Narmer seemed a likely candidate, but the somewhat earlier King Scorpion appeared with both Upper and Lower Egyptian symbols as well (I. Edwards 1971 : 1–15). The idea that there existed two equivalent states was deemed unlikely, however, especially since the Delta showed no central political organization before the overall unification of Egypt (Frankfort 1948 : 15–23). Thus the theory that a regional elite expanded its power gradually over the entirety of the country by eliminating competitors gained hold. The process started long before the ultimate unification of the country (Helck 1981 : 24–44).

This still did not explain why territorial unification occurred. Theories that the concept was inspired from abroad – Babylonia and Nubia have both been suggested – are mostly rejected now (cf. Midant‐Reynes 2003 : 275–307), and scholars prefer to focus on indigenous forces. Many think that centers of production and exchange developed along the Nile Valley and that elites in them sought increased territorial powers to gain access to trade items and agricultural areas. When the zones of influence of neighboring centers started to intersect, conflict arose, which was settled through either war or alliances (Bard 1994 : 116–118). But Egypt was rich in resources and had a small population in late prehistoric times, so why would people have competed over them? The desire to control access to foreign goods is thus often seen as the trigger for state formation (Morris 2018 : 11–38). Non‐materialist motives also may have driven expansion. People who settled down became territorial and, like players in a Monopoly game, tried to expand their holdings. Thousands of such games took place along the Nile, and increasingly fewer players became more powerful until one triumphed (Kemp 2018 : 70–75). Conquest was not necessarily the main force of unification; peaceful arrangements (marriages, etc.) may have been more important (Midant‐Reynes 2003 : 377–380).

In recent years, the view that the valley was the primary locus of change has been under attack as the result of much more research in the desert, which was more fertile in the 4th millennium BC than it is now. Archaeologists have shown that there was extensive pastoral life there and that inhabitants of the valley wanted to control access to desert routes. Part of the evidence derives from rock art in the eastern desert (T. Wilkinson 2003 : 162–195); other evidence comes from the western desert oases (Riemer 2008 ). For centuries the pastoralists who moved around outside the valley were more active and wealthier than those who farmed. They developed a greater social hierarchy and an elite that controlled resources, and brought these concepts to the valley when forced to move there in the mid‐4th millennium because of a dryer climate. Ultimately, at the end of the millennium, it was such elites who unified the whole of Egypt – valley, Delta, and desert regions – into a vast territory with a bureaucracy to administer it (Wengrow 2006 ). The question still remains, however: why?