The Significance of Tell Areini for Egyptian-Palestinian Relations at the Beginning of the Bronze Age

Abstract

blage of Egyptian and Egyptianizing as well as several ostraca, one inscribed with the name of King Narmer. Most of these finds came from Area D on the high terrace. In 1960, at the conclusion of the excavations in this area, Yeivin offered the following evaluation of the stratigraphic evidence: 1. The Egyptian and Egyptianizing appears in Area D only in Stratum V (1960a: 196). 2. Stratum V should be dated to early Dynasty I on the basis of a sherd inscribed with Narmer's name that was found in this level (1960a: 201). 3. It seems that the assemblage in question can only be explained as a result of an Egyptian invasion and probably short-lived domination of southern Canaan (1960a: 200), which should be dated to the early First Dynasty (1960a: 201). Yeivin's views have been accepted by Hennessy (1967: 26-27, 34, 61, 85-86), Lapp (1970: 121-23), and Gophna (1972; 1976a; 1976b: 9), among others.' Hennessy relied heavily on Yeivin's interpretation in his own analysis of the foreign relations and relative chronology of Palestine during Proto-Urban times, although he diverged from Yeivin in the dates assigned to the Palestinian materials. Lapp debated between considering the Egyptian intrusion at Gath [the Philistine city with which Tell Areini was formerly identified] a raid or a conquest and concluded that the latter was the most probable explanation for the Egyptian finds. Gophna has argued that Tell Areini provides evidence for both an invasion and subsequent control of southern Palestine by the Egyptians. In addition, he considers the occurrence of large quantities of Egyptian kitchenware as well as commercially imported pottery at Tell Areini an indication that an Egyptian colony may have been located here during the First Dynasty. Opposition to Yeivin's interpretation of the data has come from several quarters. For example, Ward (1963: 13-15; 1969: 215-21) believes that it is wrong to postulate an invasion (instead of commercial contacts), on the basis of the Egyptian and ostracon of King Narmer in Stratum V, especially if-as Yeivin (1960a: 200) claimsthere is no other disruption in the material culture from Strata VI through IV. Ward also points out that Yeivin's explanation was influenced by Yadin's (1955) dubious interpretation of several items on the Narmer Palette. Another dissenter has been Amiran (1974: 8-11), who interprets the marked increase in both quantity and geographical distribution of Egyptian artifacts in Palestine at the beginning of dynastic times as expanded trade which perhaps grew out of the rise of urbanization in the two countries. Most recently, Helck (1979: 361-62) has expressed his criticism of Yeivin (as well as Lapp and Gophna) in terms of the military and economic situation in Egypt during the First Dynasty, contending, inter alia, that Egypt was not in a position to extend its rule to southern Palestine at the beginning of Dynasty I since it was barely in control of the Eastern Delta at this time.2 This writer's interest in Tell Areini stems from a