posted
I wanted to know if anyone had ever heard of Kerma being under Kemetic Rule before?
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
by around 1500 B.C., the defences failed and Kerma was conquered and occupied by the Egyptians, led by Pharaoh Tuthmosis I. Kerma's subsequent fight to protect its independence and its resistance against Egyptian occupation was one of the longest military struggles of the ancient world, lasting some 220 years (roughly 1550-1330 B.C.).http://wysinger.homestead.com/kerma.html
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I looked into it. Kerma attacked and sacked Egypt first, around 1500 in the 17th Dynasty. Then in the 18th Dynasty under Thutmoses I Egypt struck back and sacked Kerma.
I am reading Toby Wilkinson's absolutely rubbish book and he left that key detail out (that Kush sacked Egypt first).
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Davies, who headed the joint British Museum and Egyptian archaeological team, said: "Now it is clear that Kush was a superpower which had the capacity to invade Egypt. It was a huge invasion, one that stirred up the entire region, a momentous event that is previously undocumented.
"They swept over the mountains, over the Nile, without limit. This is the first time we've got evidence. Far from Egypt being the supreme power of the Nile Valley, clearly Kush was at that time.
"Had they stayed to occupy Egypt, the Kushites might have eliminated it. That's how close Egypt came to extinction. But the Egyptians were resilient enough to survive, and shortly afterwards inaugurated the great imperial age known as the New Kingdom. The Kushites weren't interested in occupation. They went raiding for precious objects, a symbol of domination. They did a lot of damage."
The inscription was found between two internal chambers in a rock-cut tomb that was covered in soot and dirt. It appeared gradually as the grime was removed.
Mr. Davies said: "I thought it would be a religious text, but it turned out to be historical. Gradually, a real narrative emerged, a brand new text inscribed in red paint, reading from right to left."
The tomb belonged to Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, an important provincial capital during the latter part of the 17th Dynasty (about 1575-1550 BC).
The inscription describes a ferocious invasion of Egypt by armies from Kush and its allies from the south, including the land of Punt, on the southern coast of the Red Sea. It says that vast territories were affected and describes Sobeknakht's heroic role in organising a counter-attack.
The text takes the form of an address to the living by Sobeknakht: "Listen you, who are alive upon earth . . . Kush came . . . aroused along his length, he having stirred up the tribes of Wawat . . . the land of Punt and the Medjaw. . ." It describes the decisive role played by "the might of the great one, Nekhbet", the vulture-goddess of El Kab, as "strong of heart against the Nubians, who were burnt through fire", while the "chief of the nomads fell through the blast of her flame".
The discovery explains why Egyptian treasures, including statues, stelae and an elegant alabaster vessel found in the royal tomb at Kerma, were buried in Kushite tombs: they were war trophies.
Mr. Davies said: "That has never been properly explained before. Now it makes sense. It's the key that unlocks the information. Now we know they were looted trophies, symbols of these kings' power over the Egyptians. Each of the four main kings of Kush brought back looted treasures."
The alabaster vessel is contemporary with the latter part of the 17th Dynasty. It bears a funerary text "for the spirit of the Governor, Hereditary Prince of Nekheb, Sobeknakht". Now it is clear that it was looted from Sobeknakht's tomb, or an associated workshop, by the Kushite forces and taken back to Kerma, where it was buried in the precincts of the tomb of the Kushite king who had led or inspired the invasion.
The El Kab tomb was looted long ago, probably in antiquity. There is more to investigate at the enormous site and the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt is now making such work a priority. http://wysinger.homestead.com/article10.htmlPosts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
I read that article earlier. Dr. Clark also spoke on that invasion, though the motives he gave were slightly different from the ones given in that article. The reasoning these people give sorta makes no sense. If the goal was to show domination then you stay, occupy, have your way with their women, take their sons as slaves and make them fetch water for you and fan you off once you return to your kingdom. That is generally how that works. You don't run in, take trinkets and go home and laugh about it over fufu.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like you said if it was indeed a conquest or a raid,history is full of raids not all involves long term occupation, and they most likely did all the above except stick around.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Seventeenth Dynasty covers a period of time when Egypt was split into a set of small Hyksos-ruled kingdoms. It is mainly Theban rulers contemporary with the Fifteenth Dynasties and Sixteenth Dynasties.
I should have purchased that book. It seems a bit more honest than Toby Wilkinson's absolutely terrible, cornucopia of pure bullocks.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take my last statement back. I read some of the pages of the book from Shaw online and read the review. Over all its more eurocentric crap
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: ^^ I read that article earlier. Dr. Clark also spoke on that invasion, though the motives he gave were slightly different from the ones given in that article. The reasoning these people give sorta makes no sense. If the goal was to show domination then you stay, occupy, have your way with their women, take their sons as slaves and make them fetch water for you and fan you off once you return to your kingdom. That is generally how that works. You don't run in, take trinkets and go home and laugh about it over fufu.
Well, first thing is that Kerma at that time was obviously an EMPIRE that was much larger in size than Egypt which was small in comparison. Perhaps the rulers of Kerma were not interested in ruling Kemet so much as humiliating her. Besides, who says all the agents of Kerma left Kemet? If you recall there were people living in Kemet especially in the southern regions which always had allegiance to southern kingdoms. Even Kemetic dynasties were of Kushite descent such as the 12th, which is why they feared their brothers to the south who might wish to usurp the throne.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic