Cahiers Caribéens d`Egyptologie nos 3/4, février/mars 2002

Southern Canaan
as an Egyptian Protodynastic Colony1

Branislav Andelkovic
University of Belgrade
B.Andelkovic@f.bg.ac.yu

Introduction
The nature and dynamics of Egyptian-Canaanite
interaction during the second half of the fourth millennium B.C.
can be categorized by four primary theories/models, none of
which necessarily excludes one or more of the others, as they
might seem to at first perusal. Rather, these four theories
(Andelkovic 1995: 67-72) bring into focus different aspects: - a)
naked force, b) economic exploitation, c) colonial presence and
d) the exercise2 of socio-political power; - of one and the same
phenomenon, the Egyptian Protodynastic colony in southern
Canaan.

1
This article is a substantially revised, expanded and updated version of an
abstract published in the Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 11
(1996) 121-123. The communication itself, delivered at the SAS meeting in
December 13, 1994, encompassed the conclusions of the writer’s MA thesis,
submitted to the University of Belgrade in June 1994. The thesis was
subsequently used as the basis for a monograph (Andelkovic 1995). The author
is indebted to Eliot Braun, who kindly copy read the English version of the text.
2
The Egyptian rationale for the exercise must be seen in the economic and
social needs of the Egyptian polity (Joffe 1993: 54).

75
Naked Force Model
The first theory, established by Yadin (1955) suggested
that Canaan was invaded, conquered and dominated by Egyptian
military power. While one can hardly doubt that the troops of
Egyptian Crown protected and watched over the safety of the
colony, back up forces must have been present on a small-scale,
because there was no need for a large-scale military campaign. A
protodynastic Egyptian state3 army simply had no equal rival in
the socially and politically undeveloped/unorganized population
of southern Canaan that offered no serious resistance to Egyptian
colonization. Although a massive military campaign was not
needed, the archaeological excavations testify that some of the
key settlements of Southwest Canaan were destroyed in
conflagrations, followed by establishment of Egyptian colonial
centers (Yekutieli 1998: XXII).
Sporadic military incidents and punitive raids4 are also
suggested by Egyptian weapons - arrowheads in particular,5
found at a number of southern Canaan sites (cf. Andelkovic
1995:70). Force on a large-scale was not necessary because the
Egyptians already had a cultural, economic and socio-political
advantage that left a gap between them and the cotemporaneous
unorganized, rural population of southern Canaan. It is striking
that most of Early Bronze6 I sites with fortification walls (Tel
Apheq, Megiddo, Tel Rehov, Tell Abu-al Kharaz, Tell es-
Sayidiyeh, Tel Beith Yerah, Tell es-Sultan/Jericho) are located up
north or in Jordan Valley, i.e. near the edge or outside the
suggested colony limits, far from fortified Egyptian dominated
Tell es-Sakan.

3
Here we argue for an archaic state in Egypt (see note 11) at an earlier date than
previously believed. Such a state, as defined in Feinman and Marcus (1998: 4-
5), is characterized by a society ruled by a king, standardized temples implying
a state religion, minimally a two class-endogamous stratification and a
government both highly centralized and internally specialized; it had power in
the areas of waging war, exacting tribute, controlling information, drafting
soldiers and regulating manpower and labor and could hold on to conquered
territory in ways no ranked society could.
4
As well as exploration raids outside the colonial territory.
5
One Egyptian concave-base arrowhead of straight-sided elongate triangular
shape was found at Tel Lod (Eliot Braun, personal communication, June 6, 2000)
6
Henceforth EB.

76
 In terms of core-periphery we can say that highly
organized Dynasty 0 (Naqada IIIa1-c1) Egypt was a core
civilization, while southern Canaan in EB IB was its less
developed periphery. After the full collapse of the Chalcolithic
Ghassulian culture and before the establishing of EB II urban
culture, southern Canaan was, for the most part, a sort of ”no-
man`s-land”7 of small local communities and medium-sized open
villages with a chiefdom social organization, which presented
suitable environment for establishing the colony.8 The
coexistence of Egyptian settlers and local population was mostly
peaceful. Beside predominantly Egyptian or Canaanite
settlements, natives and newcomers sometimes seem to have
lived together in the very same locations.9 Naked Egyptian force
was mostly engaged selectively and sporadicaly in control of
southern Canaan, so as to protect communication routes to and
from Egypt for caravans that ensured the flow of goods.

”Commerce” Model
The second theory, promoted primarily by Amiran (e.g.
1974: 10-11) and Ben-Tor (e.g. 1986) defines the relationship
between Egyptians and Canaanites as purely economic, based on
mutual commercial interest through reciprocal trade. This theory
excludes any military conflict or domination. Canaan probably
exported ores, copper, bitumen, wood, tree resins, wine, olive oil,
aromatic oil, honey and other products, while Egypt exported
mostly luxury items, stone vessels, gold jewelry, semi-precious
stones, leather products, textiles and small amounts of food,
including grain and dried fish.

7
The colony is usually established on land “so thinly inhabited that the natives
easily give place to the new settlers” (Smith in Finley 1976: 178).
8
Out of five settlements, situated between 6-17 km from Tel Ma`ahaz (Beit-
Arieh and Gophna 1999: 202, 206) Egyptian presence was established at three
the biggest. Yekutieli (in press) defined a typical EB Ia Southwestern Canaan
settlement as “a small, sparsely populated, unfortified village”.
9
So far there is no evidence that Egyptians even resided in separate quarters.
About 20% of Tel Erani population seem to have been Egyptian. The loyal
Canaanites, local leaders, overseers, foreman, collaborators, perhaps enjoyed
some privileges too (Andelkovic 1995: 70-71).

77
 Merchants are identified as Egyptians (Kantor 1992:
17); Bedouins (Stager 1992:40); and Canaanites,10 respectively
(Amiran 1985); or Canaanites & Egyptians (Ben-Tor 1982: 11).
Echoes of the “commerce” theory are still to be heard in a
number of recent works (e.g. Beit-Arieh and Gophna 1999; Braun
in press a, b, c; Miroschedji 2000a). However, it is hardly likely
that Egyptian-Canaanite interaction was purely economic, based
on reciprocal trade and commerce. A significant amount of
Egyptian artifacts, especially kitchen utensils, in the undeveloped
and not particularly wealthy Southwestern Canaan suggests that
these commodities were used primarily by Egyptians themselves,
not by modest native “customers”. Furthermore, the type and
relatively small amount of Canaanite artifacts in Egypt do not
point to reciprocal trade or provide an explanation for the
presence of numerous Egyptian settlers in southern Canaan.
Reciprocal trade can primarily be established by economies of
aproximately the same level, something which the respective
economies of the Dynasty O Egyptian state11 and EB IB Canaan
chiefdom communities decidedly were not.
A better term for this relationship is economic
exploitation (Gophna 1995: 31; Andelkovic 1995: 71; Levy et al.
1997: 6). The presence of a few Egyptian individual merchants
can not be excluded, but their role was by no means crucial for
the relationship definition. As usual in colonial models, the
”biggest merchant” so to say, in this unequal exchange was the
Egyptian Crown itself, fully engaged in “royal trade”. The North
Sinai finds also indicate that “while the colony existed, there is
no evidence for ordinary bi-lateral exchange trade between
Canaan and Egypt” (Yekutieli 1998: XXII). Trade of some sort
perhaps existed with the areas outside the compact colony
territory (Andelkovic 1995: 71), i.e. the colony also functioned as
a springboard for “commerce” with adjacent12 as well as distant
areas.13

10
For using the term Canaanites see Andelkovic (1995: 9 n.2). The term is not
to be directly equated with historical Canaanites of considerably later biblical
periods (Braun and van den Brink 1998: 71 n.3; Braun in press c).
11
The details are to be discussed in the author’s forthcoming PhD dissertation:
"The Evolution of Gerzean Culture: Internal and External Factors."
12
To the best of this writer’s knowledge, the easternmost Egyptian artifacts are
two cylindrical Naqada IIIB (Irj-Hor/Ka reign) jars made of Egyptian marly

78
The Colonial Model
Ephrat Yeivin suggested (Gophna 1972:48) southern
Canaan was an Egyptian domain, an idea bolstered by Gophna
(Brandl 1989: 384) and considerably elaborated upon by Brandl
(1992). Several scholars14 have characterized the Egyptian
presence in southern Canaan by the terms “colony”,
“colonization”, “colonial system”, “colonial elite” etc., but these
terms are hardly ever precisely defined.15 Moreover, the terms are
often qualified by quotation marks16 or employed to signify some
other meaning such as “trading colony” or “mercantile colony”.17
In order to fill a need for a more precise meaning, after reviewing
several colony definitions, the term colony par excellence was
introduced (Andelkovic 1995: 71-72). It denotes a non-self-
governing,18 continuous and compact territory19 in southern

clay (Fischer 1996: 107,108 Fig.6/8; idem 2000: 208,209 Fig.12.3: 4, 210,225)
excavated at Tell Abu al-Kharaz (4 km east of the River Jordan, ca. 20 km
south-east of Beth Shean). Besides a cylindrical jar sherd, in the same context,
provided by the three connected rooms from the Phase I of the walled settlement
dated to 3200-3100 B.C. (late Early Bronze Age I), there was also a red
burnished ‘Egyptian-looking’ inverted conical cup (Fischer 2000: 206,207 Fig.
12.2:1,226). A forthcoming report will probably show are Nile fish remains
attributable to the EB Phase I (Peter M. Fischer, personal communication July 28,
2001).
13
Late EBI-II tombs (3 and 20) at ‘Ain Assawir, produced, inter alia, a pot from
the Orontes Valley (northern Syria) and a goblet of Upper Euphrates origin
(southeastern Anatolia) side by side with several Egyptian and “Egyptianized”
vessels (Yannai and Braun 2001). Additional Egyptian artifacts are found in
some other Assawir burial caves (Andelkovic 1995: 27, 28 Fig.3/3).
14
See references in: Andelkovic (1995: 68).
15
Despite some recent works on colonization matter (e.g. Edens 1997) the
statement of Finley (1976: 168) that “the semantics of colonial terminology
have not been systematically investigated”, is still valid in respect to the ancient
Near East.
16
Such as, for example, recent Yekutieli`s (1998: XXI) sotto voce statement:
“the use of the term “colony” to the phenomenon identified at EBIb2 Southwest
Canaan, is appropriate.”
17
For example, Miroschedji (2000a: 29) uses the term “colonies de
marchands”.
18
The term non-self-governing means that the managing persons were
Egyptians (perhaps a few loyal Canaanites too) who acknowledged an Egyptian
monarch as a supreme ruler. The colony was perhaps a non-self-governing
territory in a similar way an Egyptian proper nome was. Egyptian seal
impressions, cylinder seals, ivory label and serekh marks from southern Canaan
suggest Egyptians in governing positions. If there are terms interchangeable

79
Canaan, controlled by the Egyptian, Dynasty 0, Crown during
Naqada IIIa1-c1 ca.3300/3200-3100/3050 B.C (i.e. the end of
early, middle, and late phases of EB IB,20 in terms of Canaanite
chronology).
During the period southern Canaan was, as Gophna
(1995: 265) has noted, ”highly Egyptianized”, or as Porat has
suggested (1986/87: 118) “an extension of Egypt and not just
under Egyptian influence”. It should be noted that according to
some views “colonization is only one form of conquest” that
endeavors to enhance the power, prestige and profits of the
mother country (Finley 1976: 173 n.20, 174). A permanent
tendency of the Naqada culture (elite) power to expand beyond
its borders [to Lower Nubia,21 Lower Egypt and southern
Canaan] was precisely recognized by the term “Kolonialkultur”
(Kaiser 1957: 74). The previous period was the time of
exploration,22 which made Egyptians aware of the economic
resources and opportunities of southern Canaan (cf. Miroschedji
2000b: 162) while very soon after the beginning of EB IB, Egypt
intensified her control and Egyptian Protodynastic colony par
excellence was established.

The “Mastermind” Model

The view that the driving forces behind the establishing
of an Egyptian community in Canaan are “neither commerce nor
conquest” but “symbolism, organization and ideology”
personifying the needs of emerging Egyptian polity, was
introduced by Dessel (1991a; idem 1991b: 316-320). Joffe
(1991: 30) supported him by defining Egyptian colonial

with ‘colony’, such as ‘Her Majesty’s Possessions’ and ‘dominion’ (Finley

1976: 167) then formulations such as: ‘Pharaoh’s Possession’ or ‘Egyptian
dominion’ might perhaps also be adequate.
19
Whatever the exact borders of the colony might be (cf. maps in: Brandl 1992:
444; Andelkovic 1995: 8 Map 1; Miroschedji 2000a: 28). Note that such
defined ‘compactness’ of the territory includes an outnumbering presence of
subjugated Canaanites and their settlements.
20
For the division of EB IB into three phases (early, middle and late) see: Levy
et al. (1997: 7 Table 1.).
21
However, the relations of Egypt with southern Canaan and Lower Nubia are
not quite analogous (cf. van den Brink 1998: 221).
22
Egypto-Canaanite relations were minor in EB Ia1 and intensified in the EB
Ia2 (Yekutieli, in press).

80
experience as “an exercise in the administration of socio-political
power.” The establishment of the Egyptian colony improved
planning and the organizational and logistic capabilities of the
Egyptian Dynasty 0 elite. In favor of this model is information
derived from the North Sinai survey that suggests the economic
balance of the colony was negative, i.e. there was much more
investment than income (Yekutieli 1998: XXII) derived from it.
However, if copper were one of the main Egyptian
interests in Canaan, as the present writer suggested (Andelkovic
1995: 71-72; cf. Joffe 1993: 53-54), it, as well as gold, was too
valuable to be abandoned, and has probably been recycled many
times. So, the modest excavated amount, such as, for example,
the copper harpoon and awl from Tel `En Besor – “products of
the well-developed Egyptian metal industry of the Protodynastic
period” (Gophna 1995: 226) by no means reflects the quantity
originally available. At this point we introduce the term
`recyclable exports` to be understood as a variant of
archaeologically invisible goods.
Egyptian enterprise in southern Canaan was, in a way, a
logical continuation of a forcible annexation process (Andelkovic
1995: 17) by which an Upper Egyptian emerging and expanding
polity absorbed Lower Egypt.23 One could say that it was an
“overtime” of the state formation “Monopoly” game (Kemp
1989: 32) “played” by the Upper Egyptian Naqada culture elite
since the Naqada IIc period.24

23
A “momentum” of expansion, as Yekutieli put it (1998: XXII) in fact are
expansionist momenta, typical for the Naqada culture from the very beginning.
24
See note 11. The author is grateful to Renée Friedman for the following
observation based on the Hierakonpolis excavations: “This season we continued
excavation in the house at HK11 and succeeded in distinguishing 3 distinct
periods of continuous habitation from Nagada Ic-IIb. The pottery changed
exactly as I proposed in my dissertation, with the home made shale and potsherd
tempered pottery diminishing over time as the specialist made straw tempered
rough wares took over. It was interesting to see that change start to take hold in
the Nagada IIa period, which really must have been a period of fundamental
change which placed Upper Egyptian society on the trajectory to statehood. In
conjunction with the pottery, we were able to also chart a change in fabric
production, pointing to the introduction of specialist fabrication also in the
Nagada IIa period. That society was much more advanced in the Gerzean period
than previously imagined is therefore no surprise, now that we can begin to see
when things started to take shape” (personal communication, August 6, 2001).

81
 As we have already stated above and elsewhere
(Andelkovic 1995: 69-70), the phenomenon denoted as the south
Levantine Egyptian Protodynastic colony is a “common
denominator” confirmed by the all models25 presented here and a
point at which they intersect. The basic colony setting, i.e. a
hierarchicaly organized network of settlements, was controlled
from the large centers (e.g. Tell es-Sakan). Smaller sites (e.g. Tel
Ma`ahaz) and supply stations or checkpoints (e.g. En Besor) were
further down the hierarchy.
A significant amount of Egyptian administrative
devices, i.e. seal impressions, cylinder seals, ivory labels26 and
serekh marks found in southern Canaan indicate the presence of
an Egyptian Monarchy administrative apparatus. Moreover,
Egyptian related objects were ocasionally discovered in the
largest recovered chambers/buildings, e.g. at Palmahim Quarry
and Horvat 'Illin Tahtit, perhaps suggesting residences of
Egyptian officials, overseers, supervisors or the like. To more
than 30 known sites that have Egyptian artifacts in EB I Canaan,
several more have been added recently: Tel Aphek, Tel Lod, Tel
Dalit27 and particularly Tell es-Sakan. No doubt, further
exploration will produce evidence of more of this material at
additional sites.
The sites with Canaanite objects in Naqada IIcd-IIIa-c1
Egypt are not numerous – more than 10 so far. The difference
between the number of sites with Egyptian objects in Canaan and
Canaanite objects in Egypt is also significant, especially in
respect to the size of Egyptian territory under Dynasty 0 rule. It
was proportionaly a few times bigger than the one encompassed
by the Canaanite EB IB cultural horizon - its southern facet in
particular. While most of the Egyptian objects in Canaan28

25
Although introducing some terminological improvements, the four models:
Military Conquest Model, Commercialization Model, World System Colonial
Model and Distance-Parity Model, Levy et al. (1997: 6-7) hardly offer any new
approach to the previous classifications (cf. Andelkovic 1995: 67-74).
26
Such as a label from Tell es-Sakan (Miroschedji and Sadek 2000 b: 99).
27
Situated ca. 20 km east-southeast of Tel Aviv and briefly mentioned by Braun
(in press a). So far one Egyptian potsherd only.
28
Besides Egyptian pottery brought from Egypt there is colonial Egyptian
pottery, produced locally in southern Canaan (i.e. made by the Egyptian settlers,
in Egyptian shapes and techniques, with local clay). It is tempting to suggest
that a number of morphologically Egyptian vessels, excavated in Egypt proper,

82
derived from settlements, the Canaanite objects in Egypt are
primarily obtained from cemeteries. Most were simply containers
for Canaanite goods.
The disproportion in the number of sites and difference
in site type additionally indicates the nature of Egyptian-
Canaanite interaction. Significant Egyptian immigration included
military settlers who actually lived for ca.150-200 years in the
Protodynastic colony in southern Canaan, whereas Canaanites –
perhaps cargo carriers or the like – probably did not reside,29 at

and thus not suspected to be produced elsewhere, have actually been made by
the Egyptian colonists in southern Canaan as containers for goods to be sent to
Egypt (cf. Andelkovic 1995: 71). Petrographic examinations of “suspected”
vessels are necessary to confirm or rule out this possibility. Among the several
options, Braun (in press c) included the one that locally made Egyptian artifacts
from southern Canaan are actually local imitations (sic!) made by Canaanites
themselves. The terms “Egyptianizing” (Brandl 1989: 372) “Egyptianized”
(Yannai and Braun 2001:45; cf. van den Brink 1998: 216 n.6) and “hybrid”
(Porat 1986/87: 109; Brandl 1989: 376; idem 1992: 445-446) signify locally
produced Egyptian pottery and pottery sharing both Egyptian and Canaanite
features - the ratio of which may vary significantly. The colonial Egyptian
pottery is that which has morphological and other features that make it look and
feel Egyptian, but it is provably made in southern Levant; hybrids are crosses
(morphological mostly) between Egyptian and southern Levantine types.
Although it is technically necessary to distinguish between Egyptian items
produced with Egyptian clay, Egyptian items produced with Canaanite clay and
hybrid items, it is rather wrong to consider them separately (contra Braun in
press a, c) because only taken together all three components can give us the
whole picture, which indicate Egyptian colonial presence and accompanying
core-to-periphery cultural influence.
29
Egyptian artifacts, including the Naqada III graffiti incised on some of the
sherds, excavated at Rishpon 4 in the suburb of Tel Aviv, are, according to the
excavators, attributed to EB IB Canaanite agriculturists who “had migrated to
the eastern Nile Delta and there tilled the soil and learned to build earthen
ramparts as protection against flooding. In the wake of the political upheaval in
Egypt, the uniting of the north and the south (...) the Canaanite migrants either
left Egypt or were driven out. In any event they carried with them the
sophisticated engineering know-how for constructing earthen ramparts they had
acquired, along with small quantities of Egyptian pottery and other Egyptian
artifacts” (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993: 1453). The mass of physical
evidence that has been found and is still being found in southern Canaan and
Egypt (e.g. Brandl 1992; Andelkovic 1995; Levy et al. 1997; Miroschedji and
Sadek 2000 b) hardly makes such a view tenable. Note that the presence of the
transitional Chalcolithic/Early Bronze IA descendants of southern Palestine
Ghassulians in Lower Egypt (cf. Faltings 1998) has occurred in completely
different contextual and chronological setting (cf. Tutundzic 1985; idem 1993).

83
least not on an analogous basis, in contemporary Egypt. The
Egyptians built their own houses in southern Canaan, produced
and processed their own food and manufactured most of their
own pottery and stone implements in situ. A number of products,
not available in the colony, or for reasons unknown to us wanted
to be “homemade”, were brought from the mother country –
Egypt.
Two main objectives for establishing the colony were :
a) The imposition of direct control30 over raw materials and
products,31 perhaps copper above all, needed by the Egyptian
Crown, i.e. Dynasty 0 state.32 Goods were exploited directly, as
well as via the colony (Andelkovic 1995: 73).
b) An attempt to settle down and annex a new territory. The
assimilation of the local population by the Naqada culture, which
was obviously succesful in Lower Egypt, but for a number of
reasons failed in southern Canaan. However, Egyptian
colonization probably supported and accelerated economic and
socio-political changes in Canaan (cf. Joffe 1993: 39-61).
To date, serekhs with the name of Narmer and/or some
other Dynasty 0 pharaohs33 have been unearthed at southern

30
Cf. Adams (1984: 37) who applied such a formulation referring to the
Egyptian presence in Nubia.
31
Including a certain amount of taxes and tribute, as well as some form of
compulsory labour in the colony proper, but hardly the large number of slaves
sent to Egypt (contra Yekutieli 1998: XXII).
32
See notes 3 and 11.
33
The finds of two clay sealings with royal names from Abydos do not
unequivocally testify that Narmer was the first king of Dynasty I (contra Yurco
1995; Wilkinson 1999: 62,63 Fig. 3.1). Let us mention only the most obvious
arguments. The determinations such as Dynasty 0 or Dynasty I are not
established by contemporary ancient Egyptians but by modern scholars (cf.
O`Mara 2001). The listing on the first seal (Khentamentiu - the god of Abydos,
Narmer, Hor Aha, Zer, Uadji, Udimu and King`s Mother Merneith) (cf. Yurco
1995: 87 Fig.2) and the second seal (god Khentamentiu, Qa`a, Semerkhet,
Enezib, Udimu, Uadji, Zer, Hor Aha and Narmer) (cf. Yurco 1995: 87 Fig. 3) is
obviously not identical and rather represent a few names of rulers and the god of
Abydos, than fixed and canonical list of Dynasty I rulers. We do not know
which are the precise criteria by which the listing was originally made except
that it contains a different number of royal and deity names. On the other hand,
there are numerous reasons why the line between Egyptologically defined
Dynasty 0 and Dynasty I should be drawn after the reign of Narmer.

84
Canaan at Tel Erani, Tel Lod,34 Palmahim Quarry,35 Arad, Halif
Terrace,36 Tell es-Sakan, Horvat Illin Tahtit, Tel Ma`ahaz,37
Small Tel Malhata, En Besor38 and Rafiah.39 However, that
Narmer serekhs are the most numerous hardly suggests that the
colony was established by him, but rather point to the situation
that during his time Egyptian colonial presence was at its peak
and already very well established.
Recent excavations in Tell es-Sakan, 5 km south of
Gaza City, have yielded 90-95% Egyptian related artifacts,
including 25% actually 'Made in Egypt' items (Miroschedji and
Sadek 2000 b: 99) that supplement the great potential of a
colonial model to explain Egyptian presence in southern Canaan.
Tell es-Sakan, established by Egyptians in Naqada IIIab,
encompasses 5-8/9 ha or even more, and has at least 4 Egyptian
layers40 dated to EB I (Miroschedji and Sadek 2000 a, b, c). It
was an Egyptian town fortified by a kurkar stone based mudbrick
wall, possibly with towers (Miroschedji and Sadek 2000 b: 99).
Let us reiterate some of the key elements that help to
denote a genuine colony (cf. Finley 1976 ; Andelkovic 1995) :
a) dependency and subordination to the mother country from
which the emigration was initiated; b) significant foreign
immigration that becomes the dominant factor in a newly created

34
The recent Tel Lod excavations has yielded 4 serekhs of Narmer, 2 serekhs
probably of Narmer, and 1 serekh of Ka (Eliot Braun, personal communication,
August 3, 2001; cf. Braun in press a).
35
Palmahim Quarry has yielded a serekh attributed to Double Falcon (Braun
and van den Brink 1998: 76, 88 Fig. 3) that suggests a prolonged time span for
Dynasty 0 presence in southern Canaan (cf. Braun in press b).
36
One of the samples from Halif Terrace was initially defined as Horus Ka
(thus the information in Andelkovic 1995: 49) but afterwards abandoned in
favour of just another example of Narmer (Levy et al. 1997: 18-21).
37
A serekh on the first sherd is attributed to Scorpion or Narmer (see references
in Andelkovic 1995: 53) whereas the association of a serekh on the second
sherd with Narmer is based only on indirect evidence (Amiran and Gophna
1993: 919).
38
Actually two serekhs were mentioned: one on a bread mold (Gophna 1995:
26,28 Fig.6/8) and another on a jar (Gophna 1995: 32 Pl.I/7, 141 Fig.2, 202). In
regard to the jar fragment, inter alia, the names of Iry Hor and Narmer have
been mentioned (see references in Andelkovic 1995: 30).
39
The anonymous serekhs from Rafiah are dated as early as Naqada IIIa2-b1
(van den Brink 1996: 142 Table 1, 150 Table 4, 151 Table 5).
40
From A-9 to A-6 in area A (Miroschedji and Sadek 2000 b: 99, 101 n.3).

85
province; c) taking control of “someone else`s” land and natural
resources; d) compulsory native labour; e) an imperial entity's
superior economic, social and political structure; f) the
technically backward indigenous population, with small-scale
political organization, incapable of concerted action, as compared
with their conquerors; g) two ethnic groups partly merge and
absorb each others' traditions and lifeways - as suggested by
hybrid pottery; h) development of local agricultural, mining and
(simple) industrial facilities; i) a colony is simultaneously the
source of raw materials and “market” for products of mother
country.41
We should stress one more time that it is very
important to consider the above-mentioned elements, the whole
colony and Egyptian involvement, in proportion to the scale that
meets the standards of the end of the fourth millennium B.C. (cf.
Andelkovic 1995: 70).
The rather abrupt ending of the trajectory of Egyptian
colonial presence in southern Canaan appears to have been the
result of a number of factors. They include, inter alia, population
growth and more numerous formation of the EB II city-states, i.e.
a sharp increase of socio-political organization in Canaan (cf.
Joffe 1993),42 a shift in the main thrust of Egyptian interest
towards other locations directly accessible by shipping at
minimal cost, establishment of a more efficient “copper network”
to include direct control over new copper mines and finally, the
ultimate failure of the assimilation experiment, which for a while
in some aspects has actually worked, as indicated by hybrid
pottery production.

41
According to Hendrickx and Bavay (in press) it is possible that the Egyptians
brought back to Canaan cosmetics (product of superior technology) which were
produced from vegetable oil (raw material exported from the colony).
42
Successive, intensifying rebuilding and improvement of the Tell es-Sakan
Egyptian fortification (Miroschedji and Sadek 2000 b: 99) seems to reflect the
emergence and strengthening of a more complex Canaanite socio-political
organization.

86
 We tend to believe that de-colonization simultaneously
reflects the end of the most important developmental phase of the
Naqada culture.43 For some time, Egyptians turned inward,
towards domestic affairs. With the beginning of EB II most of the
predominantly Egyptian settlements in southern Canaan
temporarily became the ghost towns.44
Egyptian domination in southern Canaan, ca.
3300/3200-3100/3050 B.C. probably indicates one of the oldest
compact colonial systems hitherto known.45 Egyptian presence
possibly helped to narrow down the socio-politic complexity gap
between contemporary Egypt and southern Canaan. The
colonization, in a way, seems to be beneficial to the both sides.

September 4, 2001

43
See note 11. Whereas admittedly there is no break in the material culture of
Upper Egypt with the beginning of the historic period (Hendrickx 1996: 63) i.e.
during the final Naqada IIIc2-d phases, encompassing Dynasties 1-2, a number
of parameters point out the need to distinguish Naqada IIc-IIIc1 from Naqada
IIIc2-d.
44
A ghost town is usually defined as an once-flourishing town wholly or nearly
deserted, as a result of the exhaustion of some natural resource or, as perhaps in
our case, exhaustion of further interest. Tell es-Sakan was also deserted with the
beginning of EB II period - termed by Miroschedji “La période post-coloniale”
(2000a: 30; idem 2000b: 162). Egyptian finds in Tel Ma`ahaz mainly extended
over the site centre, whereas Canaanite finds from the later strata were found
outside the assumed limits of the Egyptian site (Beith-Arieh and Gophna 1999:
195). Egyptian mudbrick building techniques have been used, inter alia at En
Besor, Tel Erani, Afridar (see references in: van den Brink 1998: 220) Lod and
Tell es-Sakan. However, “the peculiar characteristics of colonial architecture
result from the attempt to reproduce as closely as possible the architecture of the
mother country in places where labor may be limited, untrained or influenced by
native tradition, materials may be different and (...) environment may be
unfamiliar” (see Morrison in Andelkovic 1995: 70).
45
Cf. Edens 1997. The Uruk colonial enclaves (cf. Algaze, forthcoming) were
not compact. By compact the present author means the continuous territory
under the administrative jurisdiction of the mother country – i.e. the Egyptian
Crown, which encompassed Egyptian, mixed and Canaanite settlements.

87
 REFERENCES

Adams, W.Y. (1984) The First Colonial Empire: Egypt in Nubia, 3200-
1200 B.C. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26: 36-71.
Algaze, G. (forthcoming) Initial Social Complexity in Southwestern
Asia: The Mesopotamian Advantage.
Amiran, R. (1974) An Egyptian Jar Fragment with the Name of
Narmer from Arad. Israel Exploration Journal 24/1: 4-12.
(1985) Canaanite Merchants in Tombs of the Early Bronze Age I at
Azor. Atiqot (ES) 17: 190-192.
Amiran, R., and Gophna, R. (1993) Ma`ahaz, Tel. Pp. 919-920 in The
New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed.
E. Stern. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta.
Andelkovic, B. (1995) The Relations between Early Bronze Age I
Canaanites and Upper Egyptians. Center for Archaeological Research,
vol. 14. Belgrade: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade.
Ben-Tor, A. (1982) The Relations between Egypt and the Land of
Canaan during the Third Millennium B.C. Journal of Jewish Studies
33/1-2: 3-18.
(1986) The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age.
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29: 1-27.
Beit-Arieh, I., and Gophna, R. (1999) The Egyptian Protodynastic
(Late EB I) Site at Tel Ma`ahaz: A Reassessment. Tel Aviv 26/2: 191-
207.
Brandl, B. (1989) Observations on the Early Bronze Age Strata of Tel
Erani. Pp. 357-387 in L`urbanisation de la Palestine á l` âge du Bronze
ancien: Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. Actes du
Colloque d`Emmaüs (20-24 octobre 1986). British Archaeological
Reports International Series 527 (I-II), ed. P. de Miroschedji. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports.
(1992) Evidence for Egyptian Colonization in the Southern Coastal
Plain and Lowlands of Canaan during the EB I Period. Pp. 441-477 in
The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th.-3rd. Millennium B.C. Proceedings of
the Seminar held in Cairo, 21-24. October 1990, at the Netherlands
Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies, ed. E.C.M. van den Brink.
Tel Aviv: E.C.M. van den Brink.

88
Braun, E. (in press a) Who’s Who and What’s What?: Interpreting
Ethnicity from Prehistoric Pottery in Ancient Egypt and the Southern
Levant (or: Little pot who made thee? Dost thou know who made
thee?). To be published in a volume of papers presented at the
conference: “The Transmission and Assimilation of Culture in the Near
East” organized by the Council for British Research in the Levant
(Jerusalem, 28th February – 3rd March 2000), ed. J. Clarke. London: The
British Academy.
(in press b) Proto and Early Dynastic Egypt and Early Bronze I-II of the
Southern Levant: Uneasy 14C Correlations. To be published in a
volume of papers presented at the 17th International Radiocarbon
Conference, Qiryat Anavim, Israel, Spring 2000, eds. H. Bruins and E.
Boaretto.
(in press c) Egypt’s First Sojourn In Canaan. Egyptian-Canaanite
Interaction: from the 4th. Through Early 3rd. Millennium B.C.E.
Proceedings of an International Conference April 13-16, 1998 at the
Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College-
Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem. New Approaches to
Anthropological Archaeology Series, eds. T. Levy and E.C.M. van den
Brink. London: Leicester University Press.
Braun, E., and van den Brink, E.C.M. (1998) Some Comments on the
Late EB I Sequence of Canaan and the Relative Dating of Tomb U-j at
Umm el Ga`ab and Graves 313 and 787 from Minshat Abu Omar with
Imported Ware: Views from Egypt and Canaan. Egypt and the Levant 7:
71-94.
Dessel, J.P. (1991a) Egypto-Canaanite Relations in the Fourth
Millennium: A View from the Halif Terrace. Paper delivered on
American Research Center in Egypt Annual Meeting, April 29, 1991,
Boston.
(1991b) Ceramic Production and Social Complexity in Fourth
Millennium Canaan: A Case Study from the Halif Terrace. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Arizona.
Edens, C. (1997) Colonization. Pp. 52-55 in The Oxford Encyclopedia
of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 2, ed. E. M. Mayers. New York
and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faltings, D. (1998) Recent Excavations in Tell el-Fara`un/Buto: New
Finds and Their Chronological Implications. Pp. 365-375 in
Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists,
Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, ed. C. J. Eyre. Leuven: Uitgeverij
Peeters.
Feinman, G.M., and Marcus, J., eds. (1998) Archaic States. Santa Fe:
School of American Research Press.
Finley, M.I. (1976) Colonies - An Attempt at a Typology. Transactions
of the Royal Historical Society, ser. 5 vol. 26: 167- 188.

89
Fischer, P.M. (1996) Tell Abu al-Kharaz. The Swedish Jordan
Expedition 1994. Fifth Season Preliminary Excavation Report. Annual
of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40: 101-110.
(2000) The Early Bronze Age at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley: A
Study of Pottery Typology and Provenance, Radiocarbon Dates, and
Synchronism of Palestine and Egypt During Dynasty 0-2. Pp. 201-232
in Ceramic and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant,
eds. G. Philip and D. Baird. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Gophna, R. (1972) Egyptian First Dynasty Pottery from Tel Halif
Terrace. Museum Haaretz Bulletin 14: 47-56.
(1995) Excavations at `En Besor. Tel Aviv: Ramot Publishing House.
Hendrickx, S. (1996) The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture:
Problems and Possibilities. Pp. 36-69 in Aspects of Early Egypt, ed. J.
Spencer. London: British Museum Press.
Hendrickx, S., and Bavay, L. (in press) The Chronological Position of
Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic Tombs with Imported Objects
from the Near East and the Nature of Interregional Contacts. In Egypt
and the Levant. Interactions from the 4th. through the Early 3rd.
Millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology
Series, eds. E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy. London.
Joffe, A.H. (1991) Early Bronze I and the Evolution of Social
Complexity in the Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology 4/1: 3-58.
(1993) Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II,
Southern Levant: Complementarity and Contradiction in a Small-scale
Complex Society. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 4.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Kaiser, W. (1957) Zur inner Chronologie der Naqadakultur.
Archaeologia Geographica 6: 69-77.
Kantor, H.J. (1992) The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its Foreign
Correlations before the First Intermediate Period. Pp. 3-21 in
Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (third edition), ed.
R.W.Ehrich. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Kaplan, J., and Ritter-Kaplan, H. (1993) Tel Aviv. Pp. 1451-1457 in
The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land,
ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta.
Kemp, B.J. (1989) Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London
and New York: Routledge.
Levy, T.E., et al. (1997) Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal
Tillah, Israel (ca.4500-3000 B.C.): An Interim Report on the 1994-1995
Excavations. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
307: 1-51.

90
Miroschedji, P. de (2000a) La Palestine, Gaza et l`Égypte au Bronze
ancien. Pp. 27-30 in Gaza méditerranéenne: Histoire et archéologie en
Palestine, ed. J.-B. Humbert. Paris: Editions Errance.
(2000b) De la Mésopotamie urukéenne à l`Égypte prédynastique:
commentaire sur les articles de G. Stein et al. et de B. Helwing.
Paléorient 25/1: 159-165.
Miroschedji, P. de, and Sadek, M. (2000a) Travaux archéologiques à
Tell Sakan (Bande de Gaza) en 1999. Orient Express 2: 30-32.
(2000b) Tell es- Sakan 2000. Orient Express 4: 98-101.
(2000c) Tell es- Sakan. Pp. 101-104 in Gaza méditerranéenne: Histoire
et archéologie en Palestine, ed. J.-B. Humbert. Paris: Editions Errance.
O`Mara, P.F. (2001) Once Again: Who Was Menes? An Ortographical
Approach. Göttinger Miszellen 182: 97-105.
Porat, N. (1986/87) Local Industry of Egyptian Pottery in Southern
Palestine during the Early Bronze I Period. Bulletin of the Egyptological
Seminar 8: 109-129.
Stager, L.E. (1992) The Periodization of Palestine from Neolithic
through Early Bronze Times. Pp. 22-41 in Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology (third edition), ed. R.W. Ehrich. Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press.
Tutundzic, S.P. (1985) The Group of Narrowing Necked Jars and One-
Loop-Handled Vessels at Maadi in Relation to the Palestinian Ceramic
Ware. Recueil de travaux de la Faculté de philosophie (Belgrade) 15/1:
11-32.
(1993) A Consideration of Differences between the Pottery Showing
Palestinian Characteristics in the Maadian and Gerzean Cultures. The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79: 33-55.
van den Brink, E.C.M. (1996) The incised serekh-signs of Dynasties
0-1, Part I: complete vessels. Pp. 140-158 in Aspects of Early Egypt, ed.
J. Spencer. London: British Museum Press.
(1998) Late Protodynastic-Early First Dynasty Egyptian Finds in Late
Early Bronze Age I Canaan: an Update. Pp. 215-225 in Proceedings of
the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9
September 1995, ed. C.J. Eyre. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
Wilkinson, T.A.H. (1999) Early Dynastic Egypt. London and New
York: Routledge.
Yadin, Y. (1955) The Earliest Record of Egypt`s Military Penetration
into Asia. Israel Exploration Journal 5/1: 1-16.
Yannai, E. and Braun, E. (2001) Anatolian and Egyptian Imports from
Late EB I at Ain Assawir, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 321: 41-56.
Yekutieli, Y. (1998) The Early Bronze Age I of North Sinai – Social,
Economic, and Spatial Aspects. Ph.D. dissertation, Ben Gurion
University of the Negev. (Hebrew)

91
(in press) The Early Bronze Ia of Southwestern Canaan. In Studies in
the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of
Douglas L. Esse. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization/ASOR Book
Series, ed. S. R. Wolff. Chicago and Atlanta.
Yurco, F.J. (1995) Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower Egypt - A
Reconsideration of His Palette and Macehead. Journal of the Society for
the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 25: 85-95.

92