As mentioned earlier, the first urbanisation had barely influenced the Palestinian area, but with some iconographic elements even reaching Egypt, although perhaps for other reasons. By the end of the Chalcolithic period, the region only experienced few attempts at urbanisation (such as the one at Jawa). However, these attempts were strategically different from the ones attested in Mesopotamia. Only in the third millennium bc, starting from the Early Bronze Age I and II and peaking in the Early Bronze Age III (thus at the same time as Ebla), had urbanisation begun to have a visible impact on the Syro-Lebanese coast and in Palestine.
Figure 7.1 Ebla: seal impressions from the time of palace G.
This development spread from the north to the south, from the coast and the fertile valleys to the plateaus and hills, from the areas with a more favourable climate to the drier ones (which nonetheless were involved in this process).
For Palestine, the Early Bronze Age III was a phase of growth both in terms of settlements and population. The north—south direction of this process has led us to believe that this growth was due to the immigration of people from the north. However, this idea cannot be substantiated. It is true that there are distinct northern elements in the material culture of the period, such as the Khirbet Kerak pottery, originally from Transcaucasia. However, these northern elements are only one aspect of the gradual development of the area. The demographic, technological and organisational growth of the area was certainly modelled on northern examples, but had to rely on the local availability of people and resources. Just like in Syria, settlements became part of a hierarchic network featuring major centres and villages. From a socio-economic and political perspective, these settlements maintained a tribal structure. Due to the difficult climate, agricultural yields were not high, leading to a diversification of agro-pastoral activities. There were some raw materials available in the region: cedar from Lebanon, copper deposits from Arabah, and semiprecious stones, such as turquoise and carnelian, from Sinai.
The coastal area experienced the rise of important centres (possibly Ugarit), destined to play a major role in the region. One of them was certainly Byblos, whose temples, metal furnishings, votive statues and imported Egyptian artefacts indicate its significant growth and its vast interregional network. Palestine also had important centres, such as Bet Yerah (Khirbet Kerak) near Lake Tiberias, and Megiddo, in the irrigated plains. Other settlements were in fertile oases, such as Jericho, or on the hills, as in the case of Ai and Tell Far’ah. Moreover, the Early Bronze Age III also allowed the development of centres in the far south, such as Tell Areini and Tell Arad in the Negev.
These settlements were fortified, indicating that they were in competition with each other over the control of fertile lands, resources, and trade routes (Figure 7.8). The cities were also smaller than their north Syrian and Upper Mesopotamian counterparts, probably due to the more limited availability of
Figure 7.8 The Early Bronze Age in Palestine: Tell Arad, Area K with its fortification walls.
Food. There were public buildings, such as the palace of Megiddo, or the storehouse of Khirbet Kerak. Moreover, these cities had temples, such as the complex Reshef Temple in Byblos. However, temples were generally small, one-roomed structures, with only the essential equipment for cultic activities and no political or economic function.
We do not know which cities held a hegemonic position in the various areas and periods. The Ebla tablets, as well as some Egyptian sources from the Old Kingdom, briefly inform us on the wider contacts of this region. In the north, the area south of the Byblos—Hama axis seems to have been outside the commercial network attested in the Eblaite sources. On the contrary, there seems to have been considerable political and commercial interactions with Egypt, which was beginning to have a significant influence on Palestine.
The Eblaite and Egyptian networks were naturally in contact, as attested by the vases bearing the cartouches of the Egyptian rulers of the fourth and sixth dynasty, generally found at Byblos. As mentioned above, these vases were also found at Ebla, possibly indicating that Byblos must have had an intermediary role between Egypt and Ebla. Since these objects were personalised royal gifts, it cannot be excluded that they were meant for prestigious rulers governing further away. Alternatively, it might have been customary to re-donate these prestigious (and ‘named’) gifts to third parties living elsewhere. Similarly, the lapis lazuli found in Egypt in the Old Kingdom must have arrived via the Ebla—Byblos—Palestine route, while the gold found at Ebla must have come from Egypt (specifically, Upper Egypt and Nubia). These were all highly prestigious materials, primarily exchanged between rulers.
However, the Egyptian interest in the Levant was chiefly motivated by more practical needs, namely, timber and resins from Lebanon, copper from Arabah, turquoise and carnelian from Sinai, and olive oil and wine. In case of the latter, typically Palestinian wine and oil jars have been found in several Old Kingdom necropolises (Figure 7.9). The Egyptians probably did not necessarily gain access to these resources through trade. First, they could have agreed with the local elite to exchange prestigious objects (both in terms of materials used, and in terms of value, such as magical scarabs), reserved for the local rulers, in exchange for access to Levantine resources. Second, they could have accessed these resources through military interventions, if necessary.
However, Egyptian military interventions in Sinai and Palestine were often aimed at dealing with the incursions of nomadic tribes, defined either with specific names (Shasu or ‘Amu) or more general ones (the
Figure 7.9 The Early Bronze Age in Palestine: Palestinian jars exported to Egypt (Giza necropolis).
‘savages’ or ‘sand-farers’). These people were seen as a cause of turbulence in the activities and interactions of the organised states, due to their mobility, aggressiveness and cultural difference. Nonetheless, Egyptian military campaigns at times targeted urbanised and cultivated areas. For instance, the campaign described in the tomb inscription of Weni took place along the coast, while a relief from Deshasha depicts the siege of a fortified Palestinian city. These were rare cases, since the Egyptian interest in the area was not yet expansionistic, but mainly commercial. Therefore, convoys sent to Palestine, Nubia, or the Wadi Hamma-mat were meant to access local resources, rather than establishing direct control over these areas. Through the alternation of military interventions with gift-exchange, Egypt established enough control over the area to encourage the local elite to maintain contacts.
Egyptian military interventions in the Levant were much less aggressive than the Akkadian ones from the north, and had no long-term repercussions. The crisis of the Early Bronze Age settlements in Palestine happened more for internal reasons. Their collapse was the result of an excessive exploitation of the natural and technical resources of the period, distributed among too many inhabitants for the available resources. The western corner of the Fertile Crescent was the area most exposed to crisis. Later on, the nomadic people of the area would eventually cause, and take advantage of, the collapse of the Palestinian urban settlements of the intermediate phase between the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Over a couple of centuries urbanisation had caused an unprecedented growth in the area, maybe too much to last. Therefore, this growth drastically diminished for a brief period, only to increase again shortly afterwards.
World History
