Merenptah Stele (Israel Stele): the name Canaan written in hieroglyphs as it appears on the stele (mirror view) in line 26 (context: Canaan is captive with all woe). Transliteration: k-A-n-a-n-a (basket with handle-Egyptian vulture-ripple of water-arm-ripple of water-arm) plus determinatives: enemy-foreign land (throwing stick-three hills). Note, in WikiHeiro the text should be written as such: <hiero>G40:V31-G1:N35:D36-N35:D36:T14*N25</hiero>
posted
^ Although we don't know what exactly Aamu meant, it seemed to be a general term for 'Asiatic' or inhabitant of Western Asia. 'Ta-Retjenu' was the geographic name for the Levant, while 'Kinanu' seemed to be the name of a specific ethnic group in Retjenu region.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Some highlights: Also noteworthy is an EB I tomb excavated at Azor, in which several Egyptian artifacts are included among the abundant, mainly local, grave goods, especially three Egyptian vessels and a flint knife similar to the one known from Gebel-el-'Arak. Of great significance is the fact that some of the skeletal remains in the Azor tomb, according to osteological type, are of "African" origin (i.e. Egyptian), in contrast to the majority which were local. In Egypt the finds of Canaanite origin consist mainly of clay vessels, as well as several graphic depictions on wooden and ivory "labels" of "Canaanites" bearing Canaanite vessels. The chronological span of these finds in Egypt is Late Proto-Dynastic through the Archaic Period (EB I-EB II). The most important group among those Canaanite vessels is the one known as "Abydos Ware." The archaeological evidence may thus be summarized as follows: 1. In several small sites in southern Canaan ('En Besor, Tel Maahaz) Egyptian wares comprise about 90%g of the entire ceramic repertoire. Such sites were probably inhabited by Egyptians, as a larger city in the region, Tel Gath, likely was. The presence of Egyptians in Canaan may also be attested in the Azor cemetery; 2. Sporadic finds of Egyptian origin have appeared at other sites in the region (Arad, Tel Halif) which were most probably Canaanite settlements; 3. Artifacts of Egyptian royal or administrative nature were unearthed at several sites (Arad, Gath, 'En Besor, the Sharon seal), while other Egyptian finds are of an apparently cultic nature ('Ay, the Gezer seal); 4. On the Egyptian side the indications for contact with Canaan are much less varied, and comprise mainly Canaanite vessels in predominantly Egyptian assemblages; 5. The relations between the two countries seem to have started during the Late Pre-Dynastic Period, then abruptly cease at the end of the Archaic Period.
Apparently the Egyptians have been setting up trading posts in the southern Levant since the Archaic Period if not earlier, but the paper also shows that Canaanites also set up trade colonies in the Sinai as well.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Their take may be accurate on Canaan however the author or rather authors he cites were totally off the mark about contrasted imperial rule in Nubia with the following: As already discussed by many Egyptologists, the Egyptians encountered a tribal sociopolitical structure and cultural traits in Nubia, which they considered inferior to theirs. This intercultural contact resulted in mass colonization and the transplantation of Egyptian administrative, economic, and religious institutions, as well as life ways on Nubian soil.6 In contrast, the Egyptians met in Canaan a sophisticated and literate ancient civilization, politically developed and fully urbanized – just like Egypt itself. The pharaohs of the New Kingdom accepted, therefore, the Canaanite system as it was and did not try to change it.
The above generalizations make no sense. For one, there were tribal groups in Canaan also as noted by the Egyptians themselves as well as other Middle-Eastern Empires and even Biblical texts! Second, the Nubians and particularly Kush also had a sophisticated urban culture that was literate (using Egyptian script). In fact part of the Egyptians' colonization process of Kush was simply seizing control of its cities. In fact Egyptology seems to make it clear the reason why the Egyptians undertook a campaign of assimilation with Nubians was not only did they view the Nubians as a kindred Nile Valley people but also because they especially posed a threat to Egypt. Again, Kush was not a "tribal" group but a nation-state and empire that came close to conquering Egypt several times! That does not sound like a group so "inferior" the Egyptian kings had to adopt the princes and princesses in his household as well as set up garrisons in the southern border.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic