posted
Illuminating the Nubian ‘Dark Age’- A bioarchaeological analysis of dental non-metric traits during the Napatan Period Abstract
The origins of one of the most powerful sociopolitical entities of the Nile Valley, the Napatan State (850–650 BCE), are debated. Some scholars have suggested local development of this influential Nubian State, while others propose foreign involvement. This study uses a bioarchaeological approach to examine the biological affinity of these Ancient Nubians. The focal site of this research, Tombos, is one of few non-central Napatan Period sites that have been excavated and can, therefore, shed light on the broader Napatan populace. Dental non-metric trait frequencies were examined in the Tombos sample as well as in 12 comparative samples to elucidate the biological affinities of these populations.
Analyses indicate that Tombos dental non-metric trait frequencies were not significantly different from the majority of Egyptian and Nubian samples examined here. Therefore, we propose that gene flow, encouraged by long-term coexistence and intermarriage in Nubia, created an Egyptian/Nubian transcultural environment. These findings suggest the Napatan population at Tombos included descendants of Egyptians and Nubians. The Napatan Tombos sample was found to significantly differ from the latter Kushite and Meroitic samples; however, these samples are so temporally removed from the Napatan Period, we suspect subsequent episodes of population movement may have contributed to this variation. Introduction
Beginning in the 9th century BCE, a strong and unified sociopolitical front, known as the Napatan State, emerged in ancient Nubia. Centered at the capital city of Napata (Fourth Cataract), the Napatan State quickly became expansive and conquered Egypt (c. 760 BCE). Napatan rulers initiated the 25th Dynasty of Pharaohs and legitimized their foreign rule by portraying themselves as the ‘saviors’ of Egyptian culture ( Morkot, 2000). These pharaohs are known for complexly interweaving both Egyptian and Nubian cultural characteristics into their burials, architecture, art, and dress/jewelry ( Patterson, 2004 and Smith, 1998). At this time, the Napatan State was the largest polity to have existed in the Nile Valley, extending from the Mediterranean to what is today Central Sudan; it would continue to hold this designation until the Medieval Period (c. 500; O’Connor, 1993)."
--Schradera et al. 2014. Illuminating the Nubian ‘Dark Age’- A bioarchaeological analysis of dental non-metric traits during the Napatan Period. HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology. Volume 65, Issue 4, Pages 267–280
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Illuminating the Nubian ‘Dark Age’- A bioarchaeological analysis of dental non-metric traits during the Napatan Period Abstract
The origins of one of the most powerful sociopolitical entities of the Nile Valley, the Napatan State (850–650 BCE), are debated. Some scholars have suggested local development of this influential Nubian State, while others propose foreign involvement. This study uses a bioarchaeological approach to examine the biological affinity of these Ancient Nubians. The focal site of this research, Tombos, is one of few non-central Napatan Period sites that have been excavated and can, therefore, shed light on the broader Napatan populace. Dental non-metric trait frequencies were examined in the Tombos sample as well as in 12 comparative samples to elucidate the biological affinities of these populations.
Analyses indicate that Tombos dental non-metric trait frequencies were not significantly different from the majority of Egyptian and Nubian samples examined here. Therefore, we propose that gene flow, encouraged by long-term coexistence and intermarriage in Nubia, created an Egyptian/Nubian transcultural environment. These findings suggest the Napatan population at Tombos included descendants of Egyptians and Nubians. The Napatan Tombos sample was found to significantly differ from the latter Kushite and Meroitic samples; however, these samples are so temporally removed from the Napatan Period, we suspect subsequent episodes of population movement may have contributed to this variation. Introduction
Beginning in the 9th century BCE, a strong and unified sociopolitical front, known as the Napatan State, emerged in ancient Nubia. Centered at the capital city of Napata (Fourth Cataract), the Napatan State quickly became expansive and conquered Egypt (c. 760 BCE). Napatan rulers initiated the 25th Dynasty of Pharaohs and legitimized their foreign rule by portraying themselves as the ‘saviors’ of Egyptian culture ( Morkot, 2000). These pharaohs are known for complexly interweaving both Egyptian and Nubian cultural characteristics into their burials, architecture, art, and dress/jewelry ( Patterson, 2004 and Smith, 1998). At this time, the Napatan State was the largest polity to have existed in the Nile Valley, extending from the Mediterranean to what is today Central Sudan; it would continue to hold this designation until the Medieval Period (c. 500; O’Connor, 1993)."
--Schradera et al. 2014. Illuminating the Nubian ‘Dark Age’- A bioarchaeological analysis of dental non-metric traits during the Napatan Period. HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology. Volume 65, Issue 4, Pages 267–280
The problem with this whole proposal is that the Nile Valley was a home to various populations influencing and 'intermixing' with each other since the very beginning of human occupation, thousands of years before the foundation of ancient Egypt. Premise that the "nubians" were some isolated population devoid from civilization until the Pharaohs came along is silly. The Khartoum Complex shows that clearly and it predates Egypt.
Hassan and others have been publishing much information in this regards, much of which goes to the Mesolithic and beyond.
The problem with this whole proposal is that the Nile Valley was a home to various populations influencing and 'intermixing' with each other since the very beginning of human occupation, thousands of years before the foundation of ancient Egypt. Premise that the "nubians" were some isolated population devoid from civilization until the Pharaohs came along is silly. The Khartoum Complex shows that clearly and it predates Egypt.
Hassan and others have been publishing much information in this regards, much of which goes to the Mesolithic and beyond.
Considering all this, the evidence from the Nubian and Central Sudan Neolithic sites of R12 and Ghaba suggests broad-spectrum exploitation of plant resources by these Neolithic communities. The presence of phytolith-rich deposits advocates for the systematic use of intact grass inflorescence and/or inflorescence by-products as grave goods in Neolithic Sudan. Indeed, similar whitish deposits were observed at Neolithic WT1 Pyramid at Sedeinga, north of Kerma, and the Late Neolithic cemetery Kadada C near Ghaba [50]. The finds from both phytoliths and starch reveal new information on the diet of these human groups, indicating a diverse intake of grains (cereals, various millets and legumes). R12 is dominated by domestic Near East cereals and provides rare direct evidence of the cultivation of crop plants in a society whose economy has been considered mainly pastoral. This cemetery also provides the first evidence in Africa for the use of the near-eastern wheat/barley crop assemblage. Finally, the calculus microremains imply the consumption of green parts and/or reservoir organs from plants of savannah-like environments, including riverine areas.
The development of agriculture is more crucial for regions that undergo long seasons of food shortage
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: To put this in perspective. Here's a chronology of the Kushite Kingdoms:
The problem I see with this timeline is that it does not include the the near destruction of, or significant threat against Egypt by Kushites long BEFORE the well known 25th Dynasty. Any credible timeline of the region these people are putting out needs to include this. It is significant, and credible scholars document it. Why do people leave it out of the timeline? The timeline talks about "dark ages" 1080-730 but skips over the near destruction of Egyptian power by the Kushites circa the 17th Dynasty.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug Says: The problem with this whole proposal is that the Nile Valley was a home to various populations influencing and 'intermixing' with each other since the very beginning of human occupation, thousands of years before the foundation of ancient Egypt. Premise that the "nubians" were some isolated population devoid from civilization until the Pharaohs came along is silly. The Khartoum Complex shows that clearly and it predates Egypt.
Indeed. Also keep in mind that all they show at TOmbos is a population of both Nubians and Egyptians- nothing earth-shattering there in that Nubians were the closest relatives of Egyptians with trade and numerous other links-material and biological. The authors of the article do note later that the so-called "dark age" of Nubia circa 1070-664BC) was not one of depopulation. To the contrary, excavations of the so-called "empty" Nubian countryside not only show it was populated but thriving as well. Interestingly, Tombos was starting to develop as a major center about the time the Kushites began their destructive sweep into Egypt.
PS: what else can anyone post on the Khartoum complex?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: To put this in perspective. Here's a chronology of the Kushite Kingdoms:
The problem I see with this timeline is that it does not include the the near destruction of, or significant threat against Egypt by Kushites long BEFORE the well known 25th Dynasty.
It is mentioned as the Kerma Kingdom. You're falling into the trap you denounced earlier of seeking to present the Kushite Kingdom only through it's relation with Ancient Egypt.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, your timeline above says nothing about the Kushite sweep around the 17th Dynasty era. Rather that admit it, you go into quick cover mode, saying it is "Kerma." But your timeline above only says that there was erection of defence walls at Kerma- nothing about the near Kushite conquest, in the 1500s BC. What is the source of your timeline? What credible sources do you cite as to its creation?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
The problem I see with this timeline is that it does not include the the near destruction of, or significant threat against Egypt by Kushites long BEFORE the well known 25th Dynasty. Any credible timeline of the region these people are putting out needs to include this. It is significant, and credible scholars document it. Why do people leave it out of the timeline?
Because it's barely written about or known and may also be open to interpretation as to it's historicity
show us some sources that speak about the event beyond just listing this article in references
Does Lazlo Torok speak about it?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: No, your timeline above says nothing about the Kushite sweep around the 17th Dynasty era. Rather that admit it, you go into quick cover mode, saying it is "Kerma." But your timeline above only says that there was erection of defence walls at Kerma- nothing about the near Kushite conquest, in the 1500s BC. What is the source of your timeline? What credible sources do you cite as to its creation?
quote:The Kingdom of Kerma, a Nubian culture that emerged late in the fourth millennium B.C., will dominate Upper Nubia for almost a thousand years.
Kerma owes its name to the modern city located south of the Third Cataract, on the east bank of the Nile, where are found the most important remains of this civilisation: the kingdom’s capital and its eastern necropolis. Two imposing sites, these span between 2500 and 1500 B.C. American scholar George A. Reisner, known as the father of Sudanese archaeology, discovered during his excavations (1913-1916) the remains of a unique culture. Since then, numerous other sites located between the First and Fifth cataracts have yielded important information regarding this culture. Nonetheless, the most important site remains that of Kerma itself, the capital of the kingdom, with its city and necropolis.
In the Kingdom of Kerma, writing is unknown; Egyptian texts refer to it as Kush. Its inhabitants prospered by livestock farming (bovines and caprines), exploiting of vegetable resources as well as hunting and fishing. Trade (gold, precious stones, ivory, animal hide, ebony, cattle) also contributed to the city’s wealth, due to its location in the centre of a fertile basin and at the crossroads of desert routes linking Egypt, the Red Sea and the heart of Africa. The Nubians, known to be shrewd warriors and talented archers, cared to protect themselves from enemy raids. They built trenches, palisades and fairly strong enclosure walls with numerous bastions.
Based on ceramic materials discovered in the cemeteries on Sai Island and at Kerma, three chronological periods can be distinguished: Early Kerma (circa 2450-2050 B.C.), Middle Kerma (circa 2050-1750 B.C.) and Classic Kerma (circa 1750-1480 B.C.). A fourth period, called Final Kerma, denotes the transition between the end of the kingdom and the Egyptian occupation (circa 1480-1450 B.C.).
Classic Kerma is the most glorious period the kingdom has known. The influence of its rulers spreads even to Lower Nubia and an alliance proposed by a Hyksos king of the Fifteenth Dynasty, around 1580 B.C., corroborates the kingdom’s importance on the political scene. Monumental and large-scale works are undertaken in the city and the necropolis. The western deffufa now resembles an Egyptian temple and a port is established south of the city. Two large temples of more than 40 m tall are erected in the necropolis, where the last royal tumuli clearly demonstrate the power of the kings. The kingdom’s collapse is undoubtedly hastened by this conspicuous display of wealth, coveted by northern neighbours, as well as the overexploitation of soils and an increased desertification.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: No, your timeline above says nothing about the Kushite sweep around the 17th Dynasty era. Rather that admit it, you go into quick cover mode, saying it is "Kerma." But your timeline above only says that there was erection of defence walls at Kerma- nothing about the near Kushite conquest, in the 1500s BC. What is the source of your timeline? What credible sources do you cite as to its creation?
quote: In order to demonstrate the existence and the nature of the (mostly commercial) relationship between the two states based on Tell el-Dab’a in the north and Kerma in the south, textual sources relating to the Sec- ond Intermediate Period have been taken into account. They are mainly official (the Stelae of Kamose and the inscription of the Speos Artemidos), but there are also examples from a private context, such as the biography of Ahmose son of Abana, and a tendentious Egyptian reinterpretation of the Hyksos invasion, the Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre.
The most explicit reference to relationships between the Nile Delta and Nubia is given by the Second Stela of Kamose, an official text carved on a stone and found in 1954 in the First Court in Karnak Temple by H.
Chevrier (Habachi 1972, 16) during some consolidation works. This stela has a rounded top, in which a winged sun disk and two uraei appear; on the lower part of the stone there is a representation of an officer, responsible for the erection of the monument: the Overseer of the Seal Nehsy, as indicated also by the hieroglyphic anno- tation next to the figure. H. Goedicke (1995, 106) noted that this stela was erected when Kamose was already dead, as an effort to keep alive the memory of the deeds of the king tragically fallen during the war against the Hyksos. The text records the various battles led by Pharaoh Kamose against his enemies in the north and more specifically the siege of Avaris, capital of the Hyksos kings. The pharaoh admits he had inter- cepted a message addressed by Apophis to the King of Kush. In the text we read:
“I intercepted your message south of the (Dakhla?) oasis as it was going south to Kush in a written letter; I found in it the following, written by the hand of the ruler of Avaris: “Aa-User-Re, the son of Re Apophis greets the son of the ruler of Kush. Why have you arisen as ruler without letting me know? Do you understand what Egypt has done to me? The ruler which is in her midst, Kamose the mighty, given life, is attacking me on my own land, without me having attacked him, in the same way of all he has done against you. He will choose one of the two lands to destroy it, mine or yours! Destroy it for him! Come, sail north, do not be weak! See, he is here with me! Nothing is for you who stands up for this part of Egypt! See, I will not let him run away until you arrive! Then we shall divide the towns of this Egypt and Henet-hen-nefer shall rejoice.” (ll. 19-24).
There has been much discussion of the interception of the letter that Apophis sent to the King of Kush: is it a faithful transcription of a real letter, or is it just a literary invention in order to give an ideological expla- nation to the acts of the King Kamose against Apophis? Maybe the first answer is the correct one. Furthermore, there are other details that come from the analysis of the text; the episode makes clear that during the 17th Dynasty the Hyksos used the caravan tracks in the Western Desert to bypass the area of their Theban enemy and possibly reach Nubia; the mention of troops sent to Bahariyah Oasis in order to destroy it speaks in favour of the location of this event in this place (Colin 2005, 37-38). Archaeologically the presence of the Hyksos in Bahariyah Oasis is attested by the recent IFAO excavations in Qaret et-Tub, where scholars have found in funerary contexts considerable quantities of Tell el-Yahudiyah pottery, typical of the Nile Delta region (Colin 2005, 44).
The other almost contemporary textual source for this period is the biography of Ahmose son of Abana, admiral of the fleet under the homonymous Egyptian sovereign. The text is carved on the walls of his tomb in El-Kab and completes our knowledge of the events which led to the final expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. The owner of the tomb in the text remembers his deeds as a soldier under King Kamose, mentioning the sack of Avaris and the siege of the fortress of Sharuhen, the last Hyksos stronghold in the Syro-Pal- estinian area. These operations were needed because perhaps this was the place of origin of this population, which is demonstrated also by the strong economic and cultural links of the Asiatic kings with the region. Ahmose also remembers a campaign against Nubia, indicated in the text by the toponym Henet-hen-nefer (which appears also in the Second Stela of Kamose), which may be the target of a military operation of the 17th Dynasty pharaohs Kamose and Ahmose.
The episode of the invasion of Egypt by foreign peo- ples left an important memory in the Egyptian minds; this event is recalled also in later textual sources, as for example in the inscription of the Speos Artemidos, a small rock temple near Beni Hasan restored by Hat- shepsut and dedicated to the lion goddess Pakhet. In the last section of this epigraph there is a clear reference to the upsetting period caused by the Asiatics; Hatshepsut emphasizes the efforts she made to rebuild that which was destroyed during the period of abandonment con- temporary with the establishment of the Hyksos dynasty in the Nile Delta; they are described with very negative words (such as demonstrating a lack of devotion towards the gods of the Egyptian pantheon) and were considered responsible for the general decadence of Egypt (Goedicke 2004).
The last textual source for this period is well known to scholars and comes from a literary context: it is the Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre, included in pSallier I, which contains also a copy of the Instructions of King Amenemhat, mentioning for the first time the “Asiatics” (Goedicke 1986, 1). The composition dates back to the Ramesside period and it tells through the narrative expedient of the Königsnovelle about a quar- rel between Seqenenre (“the prince of the southern city”) and the messenger of King Apophis: the story does not mention any military engagement, but a battle of words between the two opponents. In all probability it is an 18th Dynasty literary reinterpretation of the his- torical events surrounding the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt; the aim of this text is to glorify Seqenenre, demonstrating the superiority and the rightness of his actions. There are several interesting elements in the narrative; first of all the scene is set in Thebes and the Hyksos king takes part indirectly, through his messen- ger in Thebes. Also the two sovereigns are referred to in a different way: Apophis is the king, while Seqenenre is simply the prince of the southern city. This differ- ence probably lay in the fact that they were considered to be on two different rungs of the social ladder: the king occupies the highest position, while under him there were various princes, governing the different dis- tricts. Maybe this reflected the real situation of Egypt in that period: it has been supposed that for a very short time the 15th Dynasty rulers were able to conquer the whole Nile Valley as far as Aswan. As a whole, the text seems to be a later revision of the historical events, according to an interpretatio aegyptiaca trying to free Seqenenre from every responsibility and to put all blame for the terrible deeds on the Asiatic invader.
posted
Here is some more Mesolithic Nile Valley stuff:
quote: The discovery of a boat representation on a pebble dating to the early seventh millennium BC, according to the associated pottery and the contextual radiometric determinations, is worth some comment. This chronological attribution may re-open the discussion about the dating of some rock engravings found along the Nile and generically attributed to a period before or around 4000 BC, and on the use of developed boat types for navigation and fishing along the Nile. This discovery anticipates the accepted beginning of navigation along the Nile by about 3000 years. Moreover, it provides a strong confirmation of the hypothesis for the Mesolithic use of boats advanced by W. Van Neer (1989: 54; 1994: 20-1) and Peters (1991: 38-9; 1993: 417), on the basis of the study of the ichthyo-faunal remains from Mesolithic sites in Central Sudan and the lower Atbara . Peters, indeed, is explicit in suggesting the use of boats in fishing for the large adult specimens of Synodontis, Bagrus and Lates, all 'open waters species', well represented in the faunal samples of Mesolithic sites of the area, while ruling out the possibility of their having been caught in seasonal flood pools.
posted
Doug, how far into the Sahara does the boat tech go? Re the early Kushite sweep, it may very well be that Kerma was involved- I have no problem with that- but clear details are lacking. There needs to be explicit data put on the table explaining the sequence. Patrol indicates above in one link Kerma was a fortified center- and yes may have fortified its walls. And it may have been the central driving force. But all that needs to be made explicit with a clear citation or reference- re the invasion. That's all sought- not any debate per se- but a clear, credible reference- which Patrol's link now points to.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Doug, how far into the Sahara does the boat tech go? Re the early Kushite sweep, it may very well be that Kerma was involved- I have no problem with that- but clear details are lacking. There needs to be explicit data put on the table explaining the sequence. Patrol indicates above in one link Kerma was a fortified center- and yes may have fortified its walls. And it may have been the central driving force. But all that needs to be made explicit with a clear citation or reference- re the invasion. That's all sought- not any debate per se- but a clear, credible reference- which Patrol's link now points to.
African tribes deep in Africa still have similar boats. I doubt that the current state of research is going to make such connections even though 'we' know it but unfortunately 'we' aren't doing the research.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic