Hierarchy and Heterarchy The Earliest Cross-Cultural Trade along the Nile Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos Prologue Mahmoud Salih comes from a family who has profited from trading the resources of Sudan. In contrast to what we repeatedly see in the archaeological record, Mahmoud chooses to use his wealth for other purposes than self-aggrandizement or networking. He is a truly generous person – both when it comes to sharing his experienced knowledge of Sudan and his hospitality that appears to have no boundaries. The Sudan group at the University of Bergen has profited from both. As a member of this group, I am interested is the cross-cultural interaction on the frontier between Egypt and Sudan. So, my contribution to Mahmoud is an exploration of the relations between south and north at the beginning of cross-cultural trade along the Nile. Introductory Remarks on the Resources of Sudan Sudan is a country rich in natural resources. There seems to have been an almost constant contest for control over these – from the time of the earliest trade across the cultural border at the First Cataract almost 6000 years ago. In the past, it was gold, slaves, and other African ‘exotics’. Today, the oil reservoirs are the most significant source of wealth, and China in cooperation with the political elite in Khartoum are the ones who profit most from the exploitation. Thus, in a long-term perspective, slave trade and resource extraction seem to have been key factors in the identity struggles and violent conflicts in Sudan, which concern race and religion as well as resource competition and marginalization of the 19 peripheries. Another outcome of the competitions for controlling the resources is the formations of social hierarchies and complex forms of political organization. In the following pages, I present a narration of the beginning of trade across the main cultural boundary in the Nile Valley. This will give me the opportunity to discuss trade as one of the factors leading to social differentiation and political centralization. The time span covered is from 3500 to 2900 BCE, which roughly corresponds to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Cross-Cultural Trade Trade and military conquests across cultural lines are among the most important external stimuli to social and cultural change (Curtin 1984: 1). “Cultural lines” imply the existence of ethnic groups and boundaries. This implication brings us to the theories of Fredric Barth – the anthropologist who initiated the study of Sudan at the University of Bergen (see Bøe this volume). According to Barth, the identification of ethnic groups depends not only on ascription by others but mainly on self-ascription; because ethnicity will only make “organizational difference” if individuals embrace it, are constrained by it, act on it, and experience it (Barth 1994: 12). Boundaries separate what they distinguish (Ibid. 2000: 27), so ethnic groups are separated by ethnic boundaries, which are primarily social boundaries (Ibid. 1969: 15). Nevertheless, the contact between ethnic groups takes place in physical contexts – across geographical borders, which divide territory on the ground (Ibid. 2000: 17). A Note on Geography and Ethnic Boundaries The landscape of northern Sudan and Egypt is characterized by two main features – the River Nile and the surrounding deserts. The river valley is as fertile and green as the golden desert is barren. So, the two environments have provided different opportunities and constraints for human life: the river plains are optimal for agriculture, while the deserts and savannahs can be utilized as pasture for domestic animals. However, the further north we travel 20 along the Nile, the less vegetation grows in the deserts; until we arrive in Egypt where there is only sand and rocks with no opportunities for survival as on the meagre resources offered in the semi-deserts further south. The river valley of the joint Niles downstream from Khartoum can be subdivided into several regions, since the Nile in northern Sudan is characterized by cataracts – passages through granite outcrops where rapids and islands interrupt the gentle flow of the river. For the purpose of this paper, suffice to accept a division into Upper and Lower Nubia with the Second Cataract and the Batn elHajar (Arabic for ‘Belly of the Rock’) as a border zone between them (FIG. 1). The Nile downstream from the First Cataract runs uninterrupted until the Mediterranean and includes the Delta, where the river splits into several branches before pouring into the sea. The rocks and shoals of the First Cataract were an obvious natural border, which has also functioned as a cultural boundary at least since the time of the A-Group people. The land upstream from the cataract was inhabited by the ‘Nehesyu’, a collective term used by the ancient Egyptians for the ethnic groups living to the south; while the land downstream from the cataract was the territory of the two lands of the Egyptians: the Nile Valley and the Delta. This ethnic border at the First Cataract seems to have persisted despite a flow of people across the border (see Barth 1969: 21). The “cultural contents” of the ethnic groups maintaining the border has of course changed tremendously over the millennia. The Meeting of Pastoralists and Agriculturalists Cattle were domesticated in the deserts to the west of the Nile Valley perhaps as early as 7500 BCE (Wendorf and Schild 1998: 101). In response to the progressive desiccation of the desert from around 5000 BCE, the herders and their cattle retreated to the permanent waters of the Nile (Hassan 1986: 64). At this time, sheep and goats were introduced from southwest Asia, probably via Sinai and the Red Sea coast (Hassan 2000: 71). Thus, pastoralists were the first food producers to inhabit northern Sudan. Pastoral food production means 21 Figure 1: Map of northern Sudan with sites mentioned in the text. Graphics: Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos. that the main food resource coming from the herds of cattle, goats, and sheep was not meat, but milk and blood that could be tapped from living animals – daily in the case of the former and occasionally in the case of the latter. The herders supplemented the food that they extracted from their animals with fishing, hunting, and gathering; 22 which were the food strategies of the earliest inhabitants of the Nile Valley. The food crops barley, wheat, peas, and lentils that were domesticated in southwest Asia were introduced to the Egyptian part of the Nile Valley around 5000 BCE (Barakat 2002: 118), but it seems that cereal cultivation only became important from c. 4000 BCE (Wengrow 2006: 63). There is a long delay in the taking up of the southwest Asian cereals in northern Sudan, probably as a result of the well-adapted pastoral way of life. The complementary subsistence patterns of pastoralism in northern Sudan and agriculture in Egypt developed partly in response to the different environments, which resulted in distinctive cultural patterns – including food habits. The preference for certain ways of life and specific foods must at least be partially responsible for the maintenance of these cultural differences (see Haaland 2007: 171 for a similar argumentation). The beginning of cross-cultural trade in the Nile Valley seems to have taken place in the border regions between different desert and river environments. Peoples living near such ecological borders tend to specialize their production and trade with each other. Thus, the zones where agriculturalists and pastoralists met stimulated crosscultural contact (see Curtin 1984: 16). This early trade probably consisted of exchange of foodstuff between populations that specialized in agriculture along the Nile and populations that maintained the older patterns of pastoralism on agriculturally less productive land along the river, as well as in the semi-deserts and wadis outside the Nile Valley. In my opinion, the Bronze Age populations in Lower Nubia constitute a par excellence case of peoples maintaining a pastoral lifestyle along the Nile even long after they got the knowledge and taste of cereals. The first well-attested cross-cultural exchange of commodities and raw materials in the Nile Valley took place across the cultural boundary at the First Cataract. The cross-cultural exchange of foodstuffs was soon to be combined with trade in exotic and precious goods. During this first period of extensive trade, the ethnic 23 groups that interacted were the Egyptians in the north and the socalled A-Group people in the south. The A-Group People The A-Group is an archaeological assemblage that was identified by George A. Reisner (1908: 18) during the first archaeological salvage campaign in Lower Nubia, initiated as a result of the heightening of the original Aswan Dam in 1912. Subsequently, numerous cemeteries and a few habitation sites were excavated before Lower Nubia was flooded by the reservoir of the Aswan High Dam in 1971. The Swedish archaeologist Hans-Åke Nordström (1972, 1996 & 2004), who participated in the Scandinavian Joint Expedition, has made the most detailed studies of the A-Group people (see also Trigger 1965, Williams 1986, Smith 1991, O'Connor 1993, Rampersad 2000, Gatto 2000 & 2002). However, the origins, daily life, organization, and disappearance of the A-Group people are still not fully understood, despite that the archaeological salvage campaigns have ensured that Lower Nubia is very well surveyed and excavated. The A-Group people seem to have first appeared in the region between Dakka and Sayala from c. 3800 BCE onwards (Nordström 1972: 28, Gatto 2002: 116). The techniques of pot making in the AGroup society appear to have been strongly linked with the traditions of the regions further south – especially the Neolithic peoples living around the confluence of the White and the Blue Niles. These pastoral groups may have been one of the populations from which the A-Group people originated (Rampersad 2000). Despite a large influx of Egyptian goods, the A-Group people continued to produce their own distinctive material culture – both pots and tools for preparing and serving food and cosmetic substances for decorating the body (Wengrow 2006: 166). One of the most noticeable identity markers would be their finely hand-made pots – especially the painted bowls of the so-called eggshell ware. Furthermore, the A-Group people seem to have been oriented towards a pastoral ideal in contrast to the agricultural Egyptians. I thus recognize the people who produced the A-Group culture as an 24 ethnic group on the basis of Barth’s (1969: 14) definition of ethnic identity through both overt signs displayed through material culture and basic value orientations. The Beginning of Trade The wide alluvial plains of the Nile valley in Egypt are poor in natural resources, except for the potential for creating an agricultural surplus. Food surpluses, however, often anticipate social inequality and prestige economies (Hayden 2001: 249). The ability of some individuals to produce, store, and transform food surpluses into prestige objects or labour changed the society in Egypt, while these entrepreneurs established themselves as political and economic elites and used the surpluses to sustain non-food producers like craftsmen and ritual leaders. The emerging elites desired to display their new and exclusive identity. It was thus only a matter of time before the Egyptian elites sent explorers to their hinterlands, where they found that both useful and exotic products could be procured from the surrounding deserts and the lands to the south. On the same token, the A-Group people discovered the world of Egyptian commodities as both manufactured products and luxurious foodstuff could be obtained from the north. The result of these realizations was the beginning of a lively exchange between the Egyptians and the A-Group people. This trade is testified archaeologically by large amounts of Egyptian commodities deposited in the graves of the A-Group people. The imports consisted of gold objects, copper tools, faience amulets and beads, seals, slate palettes, stone vessels, and a variety of pots (Nordström 1996: 22-24). The most exotic items entering Lower Nubia from the north were some beads made of lapis lazuli from Afghanistan found in an early A-Group grave at the cemetery of Khor Bahan (Reisner 1910: 128). It was convenient for the Egyptians that the pastoral A-Group people were becoming increasingly dependent on imported cereals – the main product of the land of the Egyptians. At the same time, the Egyptian elites came 25 to rely on exotic raw materials from the south such as ivory, gold, ebony, incense, and skins of wild cats (Midant-Reynes 2000: 54). The site of Khor Daoud in Lower Nubia may throw light on how this cross-cultural trade was conducted. The site is situated at the point where Wadi Allaqi meets the Nile. This was an important artery for people and goods moving to and from the Eastern Desert, and it was most probably also a shortcut to regions further south. The activity at Khor Daoud has left 578 storage pits, but no surface structures or hearths were uncovered (Piotrovksy 1967: 128). This suggests that the site had another purpose than habitation. The excavations showed that 74 of the pits contained Egyptian pots – many of them empty and turned upside down (Ibid. 129). Many pits contained abundant pieces of ostrich eggshell, while other organic finds consisted of some date stones and a small quantity of barley and wheat. A fragment of an ivory bracelet and a piece of bronze were also found (Ibid. 130). The typology of the pots suggests that the site was used roughly between 3500 and 3200 BCE. I interpret the site at Khor Daoud as an early transit market, where the A-Group people and the Egyptians met to exchange their products on a ‘neutral’ ground (see Curtin 1984: 28). The imported pots consisted of jars and open bowls that were most probably used as containers for imported cereals, beer, wine, and olive oil. At this early time, both wine and olive oil must have come from the region of Palestine (see Hafsaas-Tsakos, in press a), as the cultivation of vine had not yet started in Egypt (Wengrow 2006: 140). Bulky goods, such as jars containing foodstuff, seem to have been stored temporarily at the site. The emptied jars suggest that the A-Group people preferred to transfer dry foodstuff into bags or baskets – containers more favourable for a pastoral life-style. The fragments of ivory and bronze indicate that more valuable commodities also changed hands here. Moreover, it is probable that the A-Group people brought African commodities north to the First Cataract, where the town Abu, meaning ‘elephant’ in ancient Egyptian, seems to have been established on Elephantine Island around 3200 BCE (Raue 2002: 20). 26 Ancient Sunet, meaning ‘the market’, on the east bank is situated under modern Aswan and remains archaeologically unexplored (Smith and Giddy 1985: 319). Both Abu and Sunet must have been vital centres for the trade between south and north, as well as important strategic points on the southern border of Egypt. Most of the raw materials that were desired by the Egyptians certainly originated from regions further south than Lower Nubia. The A-Group people must have acted as intermediaries and profited from the exchanges between Egyptians and peoples in the south. The earliest identified commodities from the north reaching the regions south of the Second Cataract are some copper awls uncovered at an A-Group camp site at Saras in the Batn el-Hajar as well as other Egyptian imports uncovered from the A-Group cemetery nearby (Mills and Nordström 1966: 6-8). Both sites seem to have been used between 3200 and 3000 BCE. Furthermore, a copper needle and two quartzite palettes have been excavated near Kerma from two burials dated to c. 3000 BCE (Honegger 2004a: 63). These finds suggest that the A-Group people were in sporadic contact with other ethnic groups living further south. It is, however, uncertain how the AGroup people acquired the exotic raw materials that they traded to the Egyptians. Trade and Political Organization among the A-Group People Between c. 3500 and 3200 BCE, three centres ruled by local elites emerged in Upper Egypt: Abydos, Naqada, and Hierakonpolis (Midant-Reynes 2000: 56). The cemeteries at these locations demonstrate that a social hierarchy was emerging since some individuals were buried with large quantities of grave goods – both finely manufactured local products and exotic imports. The access to these commodities appears to have been restricted, and these new modes of display became limited to the elites (Wengrow 2006: 140). The escalating specialization in craft production focused on the emerging elites, while there was an “aesthetic deprivation” in the material culture of the common people (Baines 1994: 71). One of the most conspicuous examples of the latter was the changes in the 27 pottery repertoire – from highly burnished wares and figural painting to coarser wares and simple linear motives. For the ordinary Egyptians, the ultimate deterioration in artistic expressions came with the introduction of the potter’s wheel and the following mass-production of pots. The privileged, in contrast, used vessels made of stone, faience, and metal. The Egyptian elites based their power on the control of a surplus deriving from agriculture. In contrast, Lower Nubia had a narrow and discontinuous flood plain, so the A-Group elites lacked large areas of cultivable land. The power base of the A-Group elites was thus animal capital and prestige goods – both local and imported (Wengrow 2006: 173). The latter point deserves some further explanation: Social inequality can emerge in areas that are not very productive agriculturally in situations where other valuable resources can be extracted and exchanged for food (Hayden 2001: 250). It seems that the A-Group elites were deriving their wealth and power from controlling the trade with raw materials coming from further south. This may explain the rise of the wealthiest regions close to the Second Cataract and the Wadi Allaqi – portals for trade routes leading to Upper Nubia. The Upper Egyptian polities appear to have been unified around 3200 BCE and the demands for raw materials from the south increased. The archaeological evidence suggests that the A-Group society became more hierarchical as the trade intensified. This is usually explained by the development of more advanced political organizations that were modelled on or influenced by the kingdoms in Upper Egypt. A fortunate mistaking by plunderers of a stone slab for bedrock protected some precious objects. The location was a multiple burial in the small A-Group cemetery 137 close to Sayala. Under the slab from the collapsed sandstone roofing, the archaeologists found. a hoard of 15 copper objects including adzes, chisels, and ingots. The most spectacular finds, however, were two mace handles covered with plated gold. Furthermore, one of the handles was decorated with an impressed frieze consisting of wild animals. The mace heads 28 were made of quartz and marble (Firth 1927: 204-207). Unfortunately, both mace handles were stolen from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in 1920,1 and they have never been retrieved. At Qustul, close to the Second Cataract, a cemetery with special character was excavated (Williams 1986). The cemetery seems to have been used between 3200 and 3000 BCE (Wengrow 2006: 167). 14 of the 33 graves consisted of large grave pits with associated trenches of up to 10 metres length (Williams 1986: plate 4). All the graves were heavily plundered, and the human remains and funerary goods were smashed and burnt (Ibid. 1980: 14). An examination of the fragmented grave goods gives an indication of the quantity and quality of the goods that were deposited in the graves originally. To give an impression of the wealth, suffice to say that one of the burials (L 17) contained more than 2600 “lip plugs” of shell, almost 1700 shell hooks, 1000 beads of carnelian and garnet, 15 ivory bracelets, and other forms for personal adornment including a gold bracelet and some gold beads (Williams 1980: 16 & 1986: 304-317). More than a thousand bowls of the characteristic painted eggshell ware must originally have been deposited in the graves, and these vessels were rare in other A-Group cemeteries (Ibid. 1986: 27). There are few identically decorated bowls among this large number, which suggests that these bowls were highly individualized local identity markers (Wengrow 2006: 167). The most disputed objects are 29 stone bowls interpreted as incense burners (Williams 1986: 108). One of them has carved images that seem to relate to the royal iconography that was developing in Egypt (Ibid. 138-145). There were also numerous imports from Egypt. Most significantly are the stone vessels numbering more than a hundred (Ibid. 123). There were also unusually large quantities of Egyptian pots (Ibid. 1980: 15). Only a few objects made of copper (a spearhead, two fittings for furniture, a fragment of a plate, an awl, and some rings) appear to have escaped the eyes of the plunderers (Ibid. 1986: 128). After this 1 A red note attached to the plate showing one of the gold mace handles informs that they were stolen from the museum, and that compensation would be offered for any information about its present whereabouts (see Firth 1927: Plate 18). 29 summary, there can be little doubt that these graves belonged to an elite with powers and resources which at that time was unparalleled in Lower Nubia and tangential to that of the elite in Upper Egypt. Cecil M. Firth (1927: 204), who excavated the cemetery at Sayala, suggested that the grave with the gold mace handles might have been that of a king or chief and that the whole cemetery belonged to a single family. Bruce B. Williams (1980, 1986 & 1987), who has published the material from Qustul, has argued vigorously for the recognition of the cemetery as a royal burial ground of the same order as the ones in Upper Egypt. Nordström (2004: 142) has acknowledged that Qustul might have been a royal burial place. He furthermore suggests that other cemeteries with elite burials in the region around Qustul may represent families who were subordinate to this emerging polity; while the wealthy grave at Sayala and the cluster of cemeteries there may represent a second polity. Heterarchy in the A-Group I propose an elaboration of the standard interpretation of social hierarchies and of the political organization in the A-Group people by introducing the concept of heterarchy. Studies of political organization often assume that hierarchy is the only alternative to egalitarian social relationship where all individuals have equal access to resources (O'Reilly 2003: 301). While hierarchy refers to relationships of vertical inequality in access to wealth and power, heterarchy refers to horizontal relationships (Hayden 2001: 234). Heterarchy can thus be defined as networks where each group shares the same positions of power and authority. I argue that for the A-Group, this took the form of several local hierarchies, where the interacting elites were equals within a heterarchy (see Brumfiel 1995: 125). A heterarchical organization can be identified archaeologically by a widespread distribution of prestige objects (see Hayden 2001: 249). Nordström’s (2004: 139) study on rank in funerary displays demonstrates that a large proportion of the A-Group people could be categorized as elite, while only a small proportion was poor. 30 I argue that the ethnic group constituting the A-Group was organized into several family groups or clans that were organized as hierarchies with a chief on the top. This would have formed multiple power centres within the A-Group society as a whole, where each elite family interacted as equals in a heterarchy. It is in historical circumstances where the social hierarchies are based on the control of trade that heterarchies are most likely to emerge. The geographical feature of the Nile gave exceptional opportunities for several groups to take advantage of their position along the trade corridor. This culminated with the rise to power and wealth on an unprecedented scale by the family of Qustul, and perhaps also the one at Sayala. This may, however, represent a collapse of the heterarchical system, as the A-Group people entered a period of changing relationships of power and wealth.2 Nevertheless, it seems like a large proportion of the A-Group population benefitted from the control of the flow of trade – both economically and politically. Obviously, the Egyptians were not content with the developments in Lower Nubia: the increasing concentration of power at Qustul was threatening and the raw materials from the south were becoming unbearably expensive through the A-Group middlemen. The relationship between the AGroup people and the Egyptians was about to change. The Marginalization of the A-Group People The territorial state of ancient Egypt, from the First Cataract to the Delta, was politically, economically, and religiously unified by 3000 BCE. The belief in an afterlife and the establishment of mortuary cults ensured that huge quantities of ordinary and luxurious objects went out of circulation and thus fuelled the demand for exotic products. The developments of arts and crafts through the organization of specialized workshops also increased the demand for imported raw materials. The consumers of the finished products were the royal family, their associated court, as well as other elite members. 2 I will discuss these ideas more thoroughly in my Ph.D. thesis. 31 Previously, the Egyptians had bartered for the goods coming from the south, but it appears that a united Egypt had the power to surpass the middlemen and take what they desired – both through their own resource extractions and through plundering of the local populations. At the southernmost end of the easily navigable stretch of the Nile just downstream of the Second Cataract, there was (before the creation of Lake Nasser) a small sandstone hill called Jebel Sheikh Suliman by the people in the nearby village Abd el-Qadir (Arkell 1950: 27). On the top of the hill was a large sandstone block with a relief attributed to King Djer – the second king of the First Dynasty (c. 3000-2890 BCE). The scene depicts two bound captives together with several massacred men and probably records a military victory over the A-Group people (Ibid. 28-29). A boat is also carved on the rock, which suggests that this was the means by which the Egyptian military incursion arrived this far south. In this context, it is interesting to note that next to King Djer’s funerary cult enclosure, excavations during the 1990’s revealed 12 large boats, which most probably were offered as burial gifts to King Djer (O'Connor 1991: 14). Although the boats may have been buried for their ritual significance, their existence demonstrates that King Djer had a fleet that could be used for a military expedition going upstream to the region of the Second Cataract. The destruction of the cemetery at Qustul seems to have been intentional, and it may have been one of the results of Egyptian raids in the area. Any material traces of the A-Group population seem to disappear before c. 2900 BCE, creating a hiatus in the archaeological record of Lower Nubia of about 400 years (Smith 1966: 118). Some of the displaced peoples seem to have settled in Abu on the southern periphery of Egypt, where excavations have shown that as much as 20 per cent of the potsherds from the levels dating to the Second Dynasty are A-Group in origin (Raue 2002: 20). Others may have taken up a more nomadic lifestyle in Lower Nubia, which in combination with the decline in trade have given the impression that the A-Group peoples vanished (Nordström 1972: 32). Archaeological 32 and written sources combined, however, seem to suggest that the Egyptians took control of the Lower Nubian river valley and marginalized the local populations during the First Dynasty. This left the trade corridor to the south open to Egyptian exploitation, and it is in this social setting that the first Egyptian trade goods above the Second Cataract must be seen. The Introduction of Cereals above the Second Cataract A Neolithic settlement site that was occupied around 3000 BCE has been uncovered under the large Bronze Age necropolis at Kerma (Honegger 2004b: 85). The archaeologists discovered numerous postholes that have been interpreted as the remains of structures forming huts, palisades, and animal pens. A total of 285 pits were uncovered inside the settlement, and they seem to have been used as silos for storing foodstuff (Ibid. 64). No Egyptian pots have been found so far south this early (Ibid. 63). However, the storage of food suggests that sufficient surpluses were gathered for this society to make the first steps towards emerging social hierarchies (see Hayden 2001: 242). On Sai Island upstream from the Batn el-Hajar, a site with similar features as the silos of Khor Daoud has been excavated. I call the site Khor Hamar from the place name of its location.3 The site consists of numerous pits, but no settlement remains are associated with them. It was in use some time between 2900 and 2600 BCE, and it seems to have been used by people belonging to the same cultural grouping as the Neolithic people inhabiting the Kerma region further south (Geus 2004: 46). There seem to have been dug two types of pits at Khor Hamar. The larger ones were used as silos for storing barley and wheat. The shallower pits appear to have held pots with unknown contents (Ibid. 47). An important discovery on The Greek-Norwegian Mission (2009) made a survey of present-day toponyms on Sai (Hafsaas-Tsakos and Tsakos, forthcoming). Without the support of Mahmoud Salih, we would not have managed to stay so long in the field, which ensured a successful season. 3 33 this site is the unearthing of the earliest Egyptian potsherds south of the Batn el-Hajar (Ibid. 50). Whether the cereals were traded into the area or were cultivated there remains an open question. I support the first option, as the earliest occurrence of Egyptian pots in the same contexts as the earliest remains of southwest Asian cereals constitute strong evidence for the establishment of trade relations between Upper Nubia and Egypt. Cereals must have been one of the commodities coming from the north. Without the A-Group people acting as middlemen, the Egyptians established trade relations directly with the populations in Upper Nubia. Thus, the site at Khor Hamar can perhaps also be interpreted as a transit market for the exchange of goods from the north for raw materials from the south; just like the site of Khor Daoud had served before the marginalization of the AGroup. Final Remarks on Cross-Cultural Trade and Social Hierarchies From 2900 BCE, the Egyptians controlled Lower Nubia, and their primary interest was the extraction of raw materials and raiding the local populations for slaves. The lack of remains from Egyptian activities in Lower Nubia after 2400 BCE can be linked to the emerging power of the so-called C-Group people that ended the Egyptian control of Lower Nubia for some time. The C-Group people, like their predecessors, seem to have led a pastoral way of life (for a discussion see Hafsaas 2006: 71). Alternating periods of trade and domination along the Nile continued throughout the Bronze Age – involving both the C-Group people (Hafsaas-Tsakos, in press b) and the Kerma people (Ibid. 2009). Long-distance and cross-cultural trade was of great importance for the development of social hierarchies and political centralization among the people of northern Sudan. During the Bronze Age, the Nile Valley was the setting for one of the earliest states to emerge in a global context. The three centres of Upper Egypt became united around 3200 BCE after a period of rivalry, which also included aggrandisement of the elites through consumption of exotic and 34 precious materials. Shortly after, political elites asserted themselves among the A-Group people as a result of intensive trade with the north. This process was interrupted by the cultural and political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt around 3000 BCE. The Egyptian king arrived in Lower Nubia with an army to smite the enemies of Egypt, and the A-Group people appear to have been literally “bombed back to the Stone Age”.4 Regardless of how brief the A-Group polity may have been, it was the first in a series of kingdoms and sultanates south of the First Cataract that based their power on controlling long-distance and cross-cultural trade. The prestige goods that the elites obtained were used both to display elite status and as gifts for establishing and maintaining political alliances. This has in many cases resulted in heterarchy where power and wealth became shared by a larger segment of the population than was the case in Egypt. Continuing until today, the ebb and flow of indigenous polities along the Nile in northern Sudan have seen a drift of the centres for power towards the south in order to get closer to the sources of the raw materials demanded in the north and to get at a safe distance from Egypt – the northern neighbour who always looked with eager eyes at the resources of the south. The phrase was first used in 1965 by Curtis E. Lemay, US Chief of Staff, in a threat towards North Vietnam. 4 35 References Arkell, A.J. 1950: Varia Sudanica. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 36: 24-40. Baines, J. 1994: On the Status and Purposes of Egyptian Art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 4: 67-94. Barakat, H.N. 2002: Regional Pathways to Agriculture in Northeast Africa. In Hassan, F.A. (ed.), Droughts, Food, and Culture: Ecological Change and Food Security in Africa's Later Prehistory, pp. 111-121. Hingham: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Barth, F. 1969: Introduction. In Barth, F. (ed.): Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference, pp. 9-38. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. Barth, F. 1994: Enduring and emerging issues in the analysis of ethnicity. In Vermeulen, H. and C. Grovers (eds.): The Anthropology of Ethnicity, pp. 11-32. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis. Barth, F. 2000: Boundaries and connections. In Cohen, A.P. (ed.): Signifying identities: Anthropological perspectives on boundaries and contested values, pp. 17-36. London: Routledge. Brumfiel, E.M. 1995: Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies: Comments. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropology Association, 6: 125-131. Curtin, P.D. 1984: Cross-cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Firth, C.M. 1927: The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1910-1911. Cairo: Government Press. Gatto, M.C. 2000: The most ancient evidence of the "A-Groups" Culture in Lower Nubia. In Krzyżaniak, L., K. Kroeper, and M. Kobusiewicz (eds.): Recent Research into the Stone Age of Northeastern Africa, pp. 105-117. Poznań: Poznań Archaeological Museum. 36 Gatto, M.C. 2002: Ceramic Traditions and Cultural Territories: the "Nubian Group" in Prehistory. Sudan & Nubia, 6: 8-19. Geus, F. 2004: Pre-Kerma Storage Pits on Sai Island. In Kendall, T. (ed.): Nubian Studies 1998. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society of Nubian Studies, pp. 46-51. Boston: Department of African-American Studies, Northeastern University. Hafsaas-Tsakos, H. 2009: The Kingdom of Kush: An African Centre on the Periphery of the Bronze Age World System. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 42: 1-21. Hafsaas-Tsakos, H. in press a: The Origins of Consumption and Prohibition of Wine. A Case-Study from Ancient Palestine. In Naguib, N. (ed.): Foodways in the Middle East. Hafsaas-Tsakos, H. in press b: Between Kush and Egypt. The CGroup People of Lower Nubia during the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. Between the Cataracts. Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian Studies. Hafsaas-Tsakos, H. and A. Tsakos forthcoming: First Glimpses into the Medieval Period on Sai Island. Beiträge zur Sudanforschung. Hassan, F.A. 1986: Desert Environment and Origins of Agriculture in Egypt. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 19: 63-76. Hassan, F.A. 2000: Climate and Cattle in North Africa: A First Approximation. In Blench, R.M. and K.C. MacDonald (eds.): The Origins and Development of African Livestock: Archaeology, Genetics, Linguistics and Ethnography, pp. 61-86. London: Taylor & Francis Group. Hayden, B. 2001: Richman, Poorman, Beggarman, Chief: The Dynamics of Social Inequality. In Feinman, G.M. and T.D. Price (eds.): Archaeology at the Millennium - A Sourcebook, pp. 231-272. New York: Kluwer Academic. 37 Honegger, M. 2004a: The Pre-Kerma Period. In Welsby, D.A. and J.R. Anderson (eds.): Sudan - Ancient Treasures, pp. 61-69. London: British Museum Press. Honegger, M. 2004b: The Pre-Kerma Settlement: New Elements Throw Light on the Rise of the First Nubian Kingdom. In Kendall, T. (ed.): Nubian Studies 1998. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society of Nubian Studies, pp. 83-94. Boston: Department of African-American Studies, Northeastern University. Haaland, R. 2007: Porridge and Pot, Bread and Oven: Food Ways and Symbolism in Africa and the Near East from the Neolithic to the Present. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17: 165-182. Midant-Reynes, B. 2000: The Naqada Period (c. 4000-3200 BC). In Shaw, I. (ed.): The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, pp. 44-60. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mills, A.J. and H.-Å. Nordström 1966: The Archaeological Survey from Gemai to Dal. Preliminary Report on the Season 1964-65. Kush, 14: 1-15. Nordström, H.-Å. 1972: Cultural Ecology and Ceramic Technology. Early Nubian Cultures from the Fifth and the Fourth Millennium B.C. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell. Nordström, H.-Å. 1996: The Nubian A-Group: Ranking Funerary Remains. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 29/1: 17-39. O'Connor, D. 1991: Boat Graves and Pyramid Origins. Expedition, 33: 5-17. O'Connor, D. 1993: Ancient Nubia - Egypt's Rival in Africa. Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. O'Reilly, D.J.W. 2003: Further Evidence of Heterarchy in Bronze Age Thailand. Current Anthropology, 44: 300-306. 38 Piotrovsky, B. 1967: The Early Dynastic Settlement of Khor-Daoud and Wadi Allaqi: The Ancient Route of the Gold Mines. Fouilles en Nubie (1961-63), pp. 127-140. Cairo: Government Press. Rampersad, S.R. 2000: Relationships of the Nubian A-Group. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, 37: 127-142. Raue, D. 2002: Nubians on Elephantine Island. Sudan & Nubia, 6: 2024. Reisner, G.A. 1908: The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia Bulletin, 1: 9-24. Reisner, G.A. 1910: The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1907-1908. Cairo: National Printing Department. Smith, H.S. 1966: The Nubian B-Group. Kush, 14: 69-124. Smith, H.S. 1991: The Development of the 'A-Group' Culture in Northern Lower Nubia. In Davies, W.V. (ed.): Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, pp. 92-111. London: British Museum Press. Smith, H.S. and L.L. Giddy 1985: Nubia and Dakhla Oasis in the Late Third Millennium B.C.: The present balance of textual and archaeological evidence. In Geus, F. and F. Thill (eds.): Mélanges offerts à Jean Vercoutter, pp. 317-330. Paris, Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Trigger, B.G. 1965: History and settlement in Lower Nubia (New Haven, Department of Anthropology Yale University). Wendorf, F. & Schild, R. 1998: Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17: 97-123. Wengrow, D. 2006: The Archaeology of Early Egypt. Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, B. 1980: The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia. Archaeology, 33: 14-21. 39 Williams, B. 1986: The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L Chicago: University of Chicago. Williams, B. 1987: Forebears of Menes in Nubia: Myth or Reality? Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 46/1: 15-26. 40