This topic is another intriguing one, because you don't often hear about African attempts at sea-faring.
I have come across very useful information, some of it here, some elsewhere. However, often times, you'll find sites making false and fantastic claims of Africans sailing the world over en masse influencing en-masse with little to no valid proof to back it up.
Not surprisingly for me, even Kemet is subject to bias about not having the capacity to be able to man the waves.
Here's a little something on the topic:
quote:
THE WAR FLEET
IN THE EIGHTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF RAMESSES III-APPROXIMATELY 1178 B.C.--Egypt came face to face with disaster. The enemy confronting her seemed invincible. Already, this adversary had destroyed much of the civilized world. The Hittites, Amorites, and Cypriots had crumbled with hardly a fight. Egypt alone remained unconquered. And now the enemy was massing for the attack.
To this day, we do not know who the invaders were or where they came from. We do know, however, that they possessed one crucial advantage over their victims - sea power. Their mighty armada descended without warning on one defenseless coastline after another. They could attack and withdraw at will, for their huge numbers, fast ships, and nautical skills had given them command of the seas. For that reason, the Egyptians called them Peoples of the Sea.
"No country has been able to withstand their might," says an Egyptian inscription of the time. "The land[s] of the Hittites, Kode, Carchemish, ... and Cyprus have been destroyed at one stroke.... They have crushed their peoples, and their lands are as if they had never been. They marched against Egypt.... They laid hands on every land to the farthest ends of the earth. Their hearts were high and their confidence in themselves was supreme."
The only hints we have as to the identity of these people are a few puzzling syllables recorded on the enclosure walls of Ramesses III's funerary temple at Medinet Habu. The inscription tells us that they were not one people, but many, banded together in a conspiracy: "as for the foreign conutries, they made a conspiracey in their islands. All at once the lands were on the move, scattered in war ... a camp was set up in Amur [Syria].... Their league was Prst, Tkr, Shklsh, Dnn and Wshsh." (Bernal 1987, p. 446)
Prst, Tkr, Shklsh, Dnn, and Wshsh. These are thet names of the Sea People. But they might as well be written in code. As usual, we are confounded by the vowel-less enigma of Egyptian spelling. We can plug in e's and a's here and there, to render these names at least pronounceable. But the result will be what Egyptologist David M. Rohl calls "Egypto-speak"-not real Egyptian.
The shortcomings of Egypto-speak become embarrassingly apparent whenever scholars stumble across an Egyptian word that happens to have been transliterated into a foreign tongue. Thus, scholars have discovered that teh name of the pharaoh we call "Usermaatre Ramesses" in Egypto-speak was actually pronounced Washmuaria Riamashesha by the ancient Hittites.( David Rohl, 1995, p. 156) The Egypto-speak names of Amenhotep, Nebmaatre, and Neferkheperure are pronounced Amanhatpi, Nibmuaria, and Naphurria, respectively, in the cuneiform script of Mesopotamia.(Rohl, 1995, p. 160) How the Egyptians actually spoke these names, we do not know, but it seems a fair bet that Riamashesha is a lot closer to the mark than Ramesses.
What, then, shall we make of Prst, Tkr, Shklsh, Dnn, and Wshsh? A good Egypto-speak rendition of Prst would give Peleset (since "L" and "R" are frequently interchangeable in Egyptian). Some have suggested that teh Peleset are identical with the Philistines of the Bible. Then there are the Shekelesh, who may be one and the same with the Sikels of Sicily. The Dnn - that's Denen in Egypto-speak - may have been the Danaans of Homeric Greece. And so on.( Bibby (1961), pp. 338-339, Bernal (1991), p. 516, Shaw and Nicholson (1995), p. 255.)
It is all speculation. We know for certain only that the invaders came from many different lands and attacked by sea. Their attack was sufficiently traumatic that it plunged the Mediterranean word into a 300-year dark age. The Hittite Empire never rose again. The citadels of Mycenaean Greece vanished from history. But Egypt survived. Of all the great powers lining the Mediterranean "pond" at the close of the Bronze Age, it appears that Egypt alone possessed the one weapon necessary for fending off the Sea Peoples - a powerful war fleet.
When the invaders descended on Egypt, they came by land and sea simultaneously. One army marched down from Syria, while another sailed right into the mouth of the Nile with a mighty fleet. According to the inscriptions, Ramesses III turned his attention first to the land invaders, crushing the enemy beneath his chariots. Then he prepared for the final showdown - the battle with teh enemy ships. Ramesses III reported, "I turned the river mouths into a strong defensive wall, with warships, galleys and coastal vessels ... fully manned from stem to stern with brave warriros armed to the teeth. They were as ready for battle as lions roaring on the mountains."( Keller (1956), p. 177.)
The enclosure walls at Medinet Habu portray the titanic battle between the Egyptian fleet and the Peoples of teh Sea. In the relief, the foreigners can be seen on their ships, waring long skirts and peculiar, cockaded headdresses strapped to their chins. The Egyptians attack with their twenty-oared war galleys. Egyptian archers rain down arrows on the enemy decks, while Egyptian sailors disable the Sea Peoples' ships with grappling irons. Meanwhile, Egyptian infantrymen stand by, capturing survivors as the swim ashore. In the end, thousands of Sea People are marched away into slaver. Egypt has won a tremendous victory.
Whoever these Sea Peoples were, they had grossly miscalculated. Drunk with victory after their easy conquest of cyprus, Asia Minor, and Syria, they had momintarily convinced themselves that they, not Egypt, ruled the waves. Ramesses III and his war fleet lost little time in disabusing the Sea Peoples of this delusion.
What is perhaps most remarkable about this battle is that it was fought during the Twentieth Dynasty (1188 - 1069 B.C.) - a period of weakness and decline for Egypt. If the Egyptians could bring such sea power to bear in the autumn of their empire, what sort of navy might they have floated 200 years before, at the height of the Pax Aegyptiaca?
We can only guess. As is often the case in Egyptian history, the surviving records are so scanty that they raise more questions than they provide answers. We know that the pharaohs used warships from the earliest times. A rock carving at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, for example, shows Nubian captives lashed to the prows of Egyptian war galleys in teh aftermath of a battle that probably took place sometime before 3000 B.C.( Steve Vinson, Egyptian Boats and Ships, Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, England, 1994, pp. 35-36; also, Shaw and Nicholson (1995), p. 86) A painting in the tomb of the Eleventh Dynasty pharaoh Intef shows three heavily armed fighting ships, bristling with archers and mace-men. ( Ibid., pp. 20, 25)
The conquering pharaoh Thutmose III made effective use of naval power in his invasion of Syria-Palestine. Thutmose's first move when he marched into the region was to seize the harbors and equip them for heavy military traffic. "Every port town of His Majesty was supplied with every good thing ..." says an inscription of the time, "with ships of cedar loaded with columns and beams as well as large timbers." (Lionel Casson, The Ancient Mariners, Princeton U. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1991, p. 30.)
Thutmose immediately put these harbors to work.
[...]
Unfortunately, such scraps as this constitute all the information we possess about the elusive Egyptian navey. No clear records remain of large-scale naval engagements, beyond the single relief at Medinet Habu portraying the battle against the Sea Peoples. Based ont the "silence" of Egyptian records, some experts have gone so far as to conclude that Egypt never was a real maritime power at all. To the extent that she even had a navy, say the skeptics, it was used only for fighting on the river and not on the high seas. Indeed, the conventional view has long been that the Egyptians feared the open sea. Egyptologists Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson wite:
The importance of water transport [in ancient Egypt] ... arose inevitably from the existence of the river Nile ... as the principal artery of communication.... However, when sailing outside the Nile Valley, on the Mediterranean or Red Sea, the ships seem to have stayed close to the shore. Unlike the Greeks, the Egyptians were evidently not enthusiastic seafarers. (Shaw and Nicholson 1995, p. 268)
Teh idea that the Egyptians were coast-hugging landlubbers remains standard among scholars to this day. But the theory has its problems. For one thing, it is based on a double standard. Evidence for seafaring ability is evaluated in two totally different ways, depending on whether it is found in Egypt or in the aegean. In general, scholars tend to assum that the Grereks and cretans were great seafarers during teh Bronze Age, even when there is very little evidence to prove this. Thus, in the book Prehistory and Protohistory, edited by George A. Christopoulos and John C. Bastias in 1974, we find the following statement regarding seafaring among the Bronze Age Cretans:
Although seafaring was unquestionably very highly developed, there is unfortunately very little positive evidence about it. Our only sources of information about the ships are a few illustrations, most of them on tiny sealstones.... In the circumstances, it is easy to see how thet Minoans [Cretans] came to enjoy teh virtually unchallenged supremacy of the seas. (Prehistory and Protohistory 1974 p. 151-152)
In this passage - as in scholarship generally - teh lack of positive evidence proves no obstacle to a firm conclusion that the Cretans enjoyed unchallenged supremacy of teh seas.
From -> Black Spark White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by Richard Poe
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Obviously that is an incorrect statement.
The legacy of Egypt on world maritime traditions is tremendous, yet the bias and distortion of Egyptology have hidden it from view.
Old Kindom burials featured multiple boat pits, some with multiple boats, during the Old Kingdom:
quote: A complete fleet of 14 boats has been found by the American Archaeologists under the direction of N.Y. Univ. Dr. David O'Connor at Abydos North (nearly 2 Km North of the Early Dynastic Royal cemetery of Umm el-a'ab). I ve added a brief account of a New York lecture (January 2001) by David O'Connor and Matthew Adams (thanks to Christine Van Heertum). The first 12 boats were cleared in recent years, but the prows of the northernmost ones had been already reached in mid/late 1980s when they had been erroneously interpreted as the bastioned corner of a small mudbrick enclosure (Hor Aha?) which would lie between the Shunet ez-Zabib and the Western Mastaba (see plan).
The boats vary from 18/19 to 24/27 meters long and they seem to have been sealed by mudbrick casing. Traces of some pygments have been found on the wood planks, indicating that the boats could have been painted white. They have prows towards the Nile. A part of the mudbrick casing suggests that there could have been a support for poles/pennants on top of the boats, as in the boats depicted on pottery or atop the archaic shrines onto some maceheads/palettes and in the HK loc. 29A cultual center. The interior of the boats was filled with mudbricks too. Boulders aside some boats have been interpreted as model anchors. The wood planks, painted in yellow on the outside, seem not to be of cedar. They were lashed by holes and rendered impermeable to water by reeds between them. Pottery and small seal impressions have been recovered by one of the 14 boats; no king's name appears, but the general impression points more towards the early First Dynasty (Aha) than the late Second Dynasty (Khasekhemwy).
Naval archaeologist Cheryl Ward revealed to have been amazed by the high degree of technical skill shown by these artifacts.
Their age should be more than 400 years older than Khwfw's (Cheops) and, although found nearby the vast enclosure (Shunet ez Zebib) of Khasekhemwy, it appears possible that they belong to the second king of the first dynasty, Horus AHA, owner of Umm el Qa'ab tombs B19.
Much remains to be known from these boats that Dr. D. O'Connor began to excavate in 1991 (articles in 'Expedition' and 'Egyptian Archaeology') after an important campaign at the northern site of the Funerary Palaces (Talbezirke) of some kings of the first dynasty and the last two of the second (J.A.R.C.E. 26, 1989); C14 analysis and the study of jars and seal impressions found in the boats will tell more about the attribution of these boats to Hor Aha. The wood has been treated with acrylic and wax to strenghten it before removal; much of it has become frass (wood-beetle excrement) which in turn can give us an idea of the wood shape and specie; the boats have been covered with sand at the end of each digging campaign.
It can be already said that archaic boats had been found at Helwan by Z. Saad and a 'model estate' and funerary boat was found at Saqqara by W. Emery (in 1957-8; tomb S 3357); both these examples were very early in the first dynasty, thus the date to the reign of Aha can't be excluded. In total 4 or 5 boat burials were found at Helwan, 2 at Abu Roash Hill M, and finally others at the northerly Abydos site of the Royal enclosures, near those just found. The most famous boat was found in 1954 beside Khwfw's pyramid south side - 4 more boat pits exist - and later reconstructed by Ahmed Yussef Mustafa. Six boats of Middle Kingdom date were found at Dahshur. They're about 10 m long each. Old Kingdom boats are depicted in the royal complexes of the Fifth Dynasty (Sahure, Unas), in the Mastaba of Mereruka and, later, there are the famous scenes at Deir el Bahari; but these are all for transportation purposes, as those reproduced in the M.K. models of Meketra (Deir el Bahari). It has been extimated that a boat for the transportation of the Hatshepsut obelisk in Karnak had to be at least 63 meters long.(cfr. A. Gottlicher in K.Bard ed. Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt p. 728 ff).
As for the wood long distance trade, we know that Aha's immediate predecessor Narmer had a great deal of relations with the Near East (Canaan) as attested in various sites expecially by Serekhs with his name onto wave handled jars (fragments). The hard cedar wood of Lebanon has been found in poles and beams of the Umm el Qaab tombs but it was already imported earlier as we can see from D.A.I.K. findings in Abydos cemetery B(Iry Hor, Ka, Narmer) and U (expec. Naqada IIIa2, c.3250).
Ancient Egypt had canals criss crossing the country, many of which were serviced by water taxis, barges and other types of transport vessels.
Old Kingdom mastaba tombs often feature scenes full of LARGE BOATS, not mere river rafts, with sails, oars or both. A good example is in the mastaba of Mereruka.
Egypt, from the very Old Kingdom and possibly prior, had to get much of its timber from outside the country. One of the main sources of timber was in Byblos, somewhere near modern day Syria. This trade was supplanted by Egyptian expansion into the area, which made vassal states of many of the people in the area. The Egyptians used these states in trade and as subjects as the source of wood for boats and possibly even the boats themselves. In later periods, direct military action by Egypt in the region caused the Egyptians to again use the local harbors, resources and population to build fleets for the Armies of Thutmosis III. All of this maritime trade and construction with Egypt led to the growth and development of the technologies that became a hallmark of the Phoenicians years later. The fact that the Phoenicians grew to be a powerful maritime force from the same area where Egypt harnessed the resources and population for its own maritime needs cannot be a coincidence. It is also no coincidence that many of the boats built in the later eras of Mediterranean sea warfare were ALSO built by the Phoenicians, again a legacy of the ancient maritime relationship between Egypt and people of that region. From this you get Greek ships that look remarkably like those of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. It is also from this relationship that you get eyes painted on the bow of Greek and Mediterranean ships, which is derived from the Egyptian legacy of painting boats with symbols of their gods, including the Eyes of Ra or Horus.
Boat from the Pyramid complex of King Sahure in the Old Kingdom. Notice that this complex is often described as having many images of boats with oars and sails, which means they were SEA WORTHY. That combined with the ancient boat burials, which were all not of the "ceremonial" or reed float type of the Khufu or Temple processions, shows that there was indeed a seagoing maritime capability in Egypt from a very early period. Again, the fact that they say there isn't is more a reflection of their bias or lack of serious scholarship. I would assume the former is more likely. Therefore, how can someone say no EVIDENCE exists for a sea going tradition in Egypt, with all the evidence that is there? I mean a culture that valued ships so much that they depicted them in tombs, built scale models (oldest in the world) and BURIED THEM would OBVIOUSLY be considered as having a OCEAN GOING MARITIME tradition. Yet this is the nonsense that keeps being told to us.
King Sahure:
Copy of image from Sahure's complex at Abu Sir:
Both of these and other boats from the Old Kingdom show the style of boats that would become common in the Mediterranean in later periods.
quote: The cheapest form of primitive boat was the pot boat, simply a clay container large enough to accommodate a passenger. It was meant for places free of rocks and was ideal for getting around the marshy areas of the Nile delta. Egypt was fairly treeless and it would be difficult to find other means of building boats. The Egyptians did find enough wood to make planked boats. There is evidence that the Old Kingdom of Egypt had the first planked boats ever made. These were used even in burial rituals. Fourteen have recently been found buried in the region of Abydos.
The boat made out of planks was an improvement on the dugout which was hollowed out of a single log. In southern Egypt, archaeologists have found a multitude of pictures of boats that, shortly before 3100 BCE, were drawn on rock outcrops or were included as part of the decoration on pottery. Among them, are some that show a mast with a broad square sail hung from it. The tombs of Egypt have yielded pictures and even models of a variety of river craft, from tiny rowboats through swift yachts and dispatch boats to enormous barges large enough to carry huge obelisks weighing hundreds of tons from the quarries.
When Sahure in 2450 BCE wanted to transport men to the Lebanon coast, boats were needed that adapted this river-design to sea sailing. Around one end of the vessel was looped an enormous hawser, which was carried along the centerline above the deck and looped about the other end. A stout pole was then placed through the strands of the hawser, where it passed over the deck, and by twisting, one could tighten the entire harness just like a tourniquet. This served for internal stiffening, as the hawser kept the ends from sagging when the boat rode heavy waves. An elaborate netting was also added, which ran horizontally about the upper part of the hull. This may have been another aid for holding the ship together, or merely gear to protect the sides from rubbing.
A two-legged mast rather than the single mast was also designed, and it served to distribute the pressure, steadied by lines fore and aft. A tall, slender square-sail was mounted with two spars spreading it, a yard along the head, and a boom along the foot. When there was no wind, sail was taken in, the mast lowered, and rowers could power the ship along.
But this is just a part of the legacy of ancient Egypt in maritime tradition. Just like the Egyptians influenced the Mediterranean maritime tradition, they also influenced that of the Red Sea and Persian Gulf as a result of the spread of Islam. Maritime trade was a key feature during the Islamic period of Islamic control of the Mediterranean and Egyptian ship designs were an important part of this history. The felucca and other styles of ships derived from Egyptian boats were prominent during the Islamic age of domination of Mediterranean commerce.
Also, it has been said that the first DRY DOCK was built in Egypt, by a Phoenician no less.
quote: Antiquity
According to the ancient Greek author Athenaeus of Naucratis, the drydock was invented in Ptolemaic Egypt, some time after the death of Ptolemy IV Philopator (reigned 221-204 BC): “ But after that (the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator) a Phoenician devised a new method of launching it (a ship), having dug a trench under it, equal to the ship itself in length, which he dug close to the harbour. And in the trench he built props of solid stone five cubits deep, and across them he laid beams crosswise, running the whole width of the trench, at four cubits' distance from one another; and then making a channel from the sea he filled all the space which he had excavated with water, out of which he easily brought the ship by the aid of whatever men happened to be at hand; then closing the entrance which had been originally made, he drained the water off again by means of engines (organois); and when this had been done the vessel rested securely on the before-mentioned cross-beams.[1] ”
Since Athenaeus recorded the event 400 years later (around 200 AD), there is sufficient reason to believe that drydocks had been known throughout classical antiquity.
But this is only to expected, given the 3,000 year history of Egyptian maritime technology by that time and the fact that the Egyptians had been building causeways, dams and canals for even longer than that. A drydock combines the excavation and canal capabilities of ancient times with the nilometer and other fluid volume measurement systems of the Nile. The markings on the undersides of ships and the sides of canals traces their origins back to Egypt, the Nilometer and the measurments of the inundation.
Not only that, but the tradition of using such boats in naval warfare in the Mediterranean can also be traced back to Egypt as the scenes in the Old Kingdom mastabas and records of the military actions of Thutmosis III show clearly.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The Trireme was developed in Egypt, according to Herodatus, by the Pharoah Neco II. Necho II is the one who sent expeditions around Africa. Another author, H.T. Wallinga, believes that the trireme was developed in Egypt, but not by Necho. Either way, the trireme was an important development in the history of maritime trade and warfare in the Mediterranean and shows that Egypt played a very important part of the technological development of maritime shipping, right up to the very late period.
quote: Necho concentrated much of his war effort on rebuilding the Egyptian maritime strength. He built fleets of triremes with rams of the type invented by the armorers of Samos and Corinth in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea and manned them with Greeks.
Necos betook himself to raging wars, and triremes were built by him, some for the Northern Sea and others in the Arabian gulf for the Erythraian Sea; and of these the sheds are still to be seen. These ships he used when he needed them. Herodotus, Histories 2.159 [2], translated by Macaulay Project Gutenberg
H.T.Wallinga disputes the fact that triremes were built by Necho and thinks that Herodotus mistranslated the Egyptian word for "ship". He moreover maintains that the trireme was not developed in Greece but in Egypt during the late 6th century BCE and was a result (or perhaps a cause) of the Egyptian Persian arms race.
The canal connecting the Pelusian arm of the Nile with the Red Sea via Wadi Tumilat and the Bitter Lakes was of vital strategic importance, both militarily and economically, above all for the protection of the Egyptian southern flank and the trade routes to Arabia and East Africa. If it was abandoned, as Herodotus claims, Edomites, Arabs and Babylonians who plied those waters could do so unhindered. Necho also sent a party of Phoenicians on a journey around Africa. The purpose of the undertaking can only be surmised and nothing is known whether it had any effect on the trade with the dark continent.
Review Author H.T. Wallinga's book on Egypt and the development of maritime technology:
quote: Many of Wallinga's ideas are quite radical and often at variance with commonly-held scholarly opinion; but only occasionally (e.g., when criticizing Meyer's view of the evolution of Athenian naval power on pp. 8-11) does he labour the point when opposing traditional interpretations. Many of Wallinga's ideas are worthy of serious consideration. So, for instance, he argues that the penteconter was without exception a twin-banked vessel rather than the more common view that there were both single and twin-banked versions (pp. 45-53). The introduction of the trireme he dates quite late to some time in the third quarter of the sixth century, dismissing the triremes attributed to the seventh-century Egyptian pharaoh Necho by Herodotus (2.159) as a mistranslation of the Egyptian word for `ship', which in Herodotus' time was equivalent to Greek trieres but probably in Necho's time referred to the then standard warship (pp. 104f.). Wallinga finds it difficult to believe that these vessels can have been triremes for the very sound reason that if the trireme was in existence around 600 BC, it is strange that the Carthaginians did not use them at the battle of Alalia in the 540s BC to offset the otherwise superior Phocaean penteconters (on which see pp. 67-83).
Wallinga further argues that the evolution of the trireme occurred not in the world of the Greek polis (where the speed advantage over the penteconter would not, without other factors coming into play, justify the trebling of the manpower requirement), but in Carthage and Egypt, and in two distinct phases; the Carthaginians added a third bank of oars to the penteconter as a means of countering Phocaean naval superiority, and the three-banked system was in Egypt added to existing cargo vessels to counter a potential naval threat from Persia (pp. 102-18). This is in direct contrast to the usual view that the trireme originated in Greece and was then exported to the Near East; but though Thucydides says that triremes were built (1.13.2), it seems best, despite the objections of Morrison, to accept Wallinga's view (p. 31) that by this he means the first triremes in Greece, not the first triremes ever; this is the natural reading of the Greek. Wallinga's hypothesis seems far more plausible than the common view that the trireme evolved from the much smaller two-level penteconter with no intermediate stage, though it will not appeal to the Hellenocentric. According to Wallinga, the trireme only became the standard warship in the late sixth and early fifth centuries BC; Persia built them because Egypt had them, Athens because Persia had them, and the rest of Greece because of Athens.
Very good finds, Doug.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Great info, Doug! And a very good topic, Whatbox.
I have been aware of the bias against Africans in seafaring for a while now.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Thanks Guys.
Another thing I realized later after making my earlier posts, is that the Boat pits featuring boats on mooring devices to stand upright ARE DRY DOCKS. So there you have it right there, ancient boat pits from Egypt are some of the oldest "dry docks" in the world. But unless you get out of the Eurocentric or Hellenocentric mindset you won't see this. Remember many boat pits were associated also with canals and causeways that led to temples and other important sanctuaries which possibly had some sort of mechanism to cut off the water and leave the boat resting on a foundation. This would mean that some boat pits had boats in them that were NOT dissasembled and therefore sat in "dry dock". http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/greatpyramid5.htm
quote: Equally important was the funerary boat, which transported a mummy to its final resting place or, if buried with the deceased, took soul of the dead on its eternal journey. Ahmed Youssef Moustafa believed that the Royal Ship was specifically built as a funerary barque for Cheops and was never part of the royal fleet. Part of the reason for this belief is that ocean-going vessels were usually painted green on the body with yellow ochre at the ends and the protective wedjat eye painted on both sides of the bow. This is in direct contrast to the hull of the Royal Ship, which is unpainted, indicating that the ship was built quickly and specifically for the king’s burial.
Early sun temples from the old kingdom featured such boats. These temples are also important to understanding the development of the calendar and timekeeping in Egypt. The fact that they all featured obelisks as their central element, indicates to me that they were tracking time and the seasons using the obelisk as a reference for shadows and so forth. Many of these sun temples were also aligned accurately to the cardinal directions, again an indication of their use for time keeping and recording the suns journey through the sky over the course of the year. Another thing that I see in this tradition of sun temples is the obelisk as a refinement of the concept of megaliths that had arisen in the area of Nabta Playa. Just as Nabta Playa used megalithic stones to record the seasons, the solar soltice and possibly time, the sun temples seem to be also doing the same thing. The presence of elaborate offering chambers and vessels for sacrifices of cattle at these sun temples also seems to be another continuation of a tradition that was found in Nabta Playa.
quote: The alter itself, directly in front of (east) of the obelisk, was laid out in the open courtyard approximately in the center of the temple. It is a complex object, made up of five huge alabaster blocks. The central block's upper surface is carved in a 1.8 meter (6 foot) diameter circular form, which may symbolize a rounded offering table or a stylized hieroglyphic sign for Re, the sun god. The four later blocks, each facing cardinal points, have surfaces carved in the form of the hieroglyphic symbol hetep, which means "offering" or "offering table," but might also be translated as "peace" or Another view of the pedestal"satisfied." Hence, the altar might symbolically be read as, 'Re is satisfied' in the four principal directions. This offering table today remains in a good state of preservation, and represents the most beautiful example of its type from all eras of Egyptian history.
This alter was situated at the eastern foot of an immense stone pedestal some 20 meters high. Surmounting this pedestal was a 36 meter high obelisk. The pedestal itself, built of limestone blocks with red granite casing, took the form of a truncated pyramid.
Southwest of the altar at the south east corner of the pedestal, was an opening into the dedication chapel, which also allowed access to the "chamber of the seasons". Within the T-shaped entrance vestibule of the temple enclosure are five granite lined doorways. Those in the center lead into the courtyard. Those to the side opened into corridors that lead off to the right and left, A granite pillar at the site of Niuserre's Sun Temple inscribed with his cartoucheskirting the courtyard. The right corridor appears to lead around the edge of the courtyard to the storage annexes. On this corridor's east end was a stairway that led to the roof terrace. The corridor to the left (south) lead completely around the courtyard finally providing access first to the "chamber of the seasons" and then the dedication chapel. The "chamber of the seasons" included fine, low relief depictions known as the "Seasons", which portray the changing seasons of inundation and harvest. Doubtless present, but now gone, were reliefs of the third part of the year, the season of emergence (of the fields from the flood or the crops from the ground). However, von Bissing removed these reliefs and transported them to Germany where today they make up one of the most valuable exhibits of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin.
Just in front (east) of the "chamber of the seasons" was a small chapel decorated with scenes of the dedication of the temple. Unfortunately, these reliefs were applied to poor stone enhanced with a coating of lime plaster and were in poor condition. Both the entrance and the outside corridors were decorated with Sed-festival scenes, including some of the earliest that we know of, presumably oriented towards the king and his relationship with Re.
quote: Located 100 km west of Abu Simbel, in southernmost Egypt, Nabta Playa is a large, internally drained basin, which during the early Holocene ( ca. 11,000 - 5500 calibrated radiocarbon years ago) was a large and important ceremonial center for prehistoric people. It was intermittently and seasonally filled with water, which encouraged people to come there, and today it contains dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of archaeological sites. People came from many regions to Nabta Playa to record astronomical events, erect alignments of megaliths, and build impressive stone structures.
From around 65,000 years ago until about 12,000 years ago the Western Desert was hyper-arid, at least as dry as today and perhaps drier. This began to change after 12,000 years ago when the summer rains of tropical Africa began to move northward, bringing sufficient moisture for a wide variety of sahelian grasses, trees and bushes to grow, and for a few small animals to exist, mostly hares and small gazelle, but also including a few small carnivores. Even with the rains it was still very dry; the annual rainfall was no more than 100 - 150 mm per year, and it was unpredictable and punctuated with numerous droughts, some of which caused the desert to be abandoned for lengthy periods. The earliest (11,000 - 9300 years ago, calibrated) settlements at Nabta were composed of small seasonal camps of cattle-herding and ceramic-using people. These early cattle are regarded as domestic (Wendorf and Schild 1994), and it may have been in the Western Desert that the African pattern of cattle herding developed, wherein cattle serve as a "walking larder" and provide milk and blood, rather than meat (except for ceremonial occasions) and are the economic basis for power and prestige. Pottery is very rare in these sites, but distinctive. It is decorated over the entire exterior with complex patterns of impressions applied with a comb in a rocking motion. The source of this pottery has not been identified, but it is among the oldest known in Africa, and older than pottery in Southwest Asia. These early people probably came into the desert after the summer rains from either farther south or the adjacent Nile Valley, in either case searching for pasture for their cattle. Each fall, when the surface water in the playas dried up and there was no water for them or their cattle, they had to return to the Nile, or perhaps to the better watered areas to the south.
By 9000 years ago (8000 bp, uncalibrated), the settlements were much larger, and their inhabitants were able to live in the desert year-round, digging large, deep wells and living in organized villages consisting of small huts arranged in straight lines. The many plant remains in these sites tell us they were collecting large numbers of edible wild plants, including sorghum, millets, legumes, tubers, and fruits. Around 8800 years ago (7800 bp, uncalibrated), they began to make pottery locally, possibly the earliest pottery in Egypt. A few hundred years later, around 8100 years ago (7100 bp, uncalibrated), sheep and goats occur for the first time at Nabta, almost certainly introduced from Southwest Asia, where domestic caprovids had been known for over 2000 years. There must have been many changes in the settlement system to accommodate these new animals; the settlements are very large and contain numerous hearths, but there is no evidence of huts or houses.
A major change occurred in the character of the Neolithic society at Nabta occurred around 7500 years ago, following a major drought which drove the previous groups from the desert. The groups who returned to the desert now clearly had a complex social system that expressed a degree of organization and control not previously seen in Egypt. They sacrificed young cows and buried them in clay-lined and roofed chambers covered by rough stone tumuli, they erected alignments of large, unshaped stones, they built Egypt's earliest astronomical measuring device (a "calendar circle" which appears to have been used to mark the summer solstice), and they constructed more than 30 complex structures having both surface and subterranean features. A shaped stone from one of these complexes may be the oldest known sculpture in Egypt.
These structures are important because they indicate the way the people were able to organize work, celebrate their culture, and perhaps express their religious beliefs, and furthermore, they tell us that the Saharan people may have been more highly organized than their contemporaries in the Nile Valley.
^ I have read sources which state that the Egyptians ketp somewhat of a distance from the Mediterranean Sea or were "distrustful" of it and preferred sailing the Red Sea instead. But this made little sense to me.
How true was this? Why would the Egyptians prefer sailing in the Red Sea as opposed to the Mediterranean?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
They did both. The statement is a myth that has become fact in many histories in Egypt. The Egyptians had developed all sorts of means to sail on rivers and open sea way back in the 0ld Kingdom. The purposes for sailing along all of the nearby bodies of water were the same: trade, military action and travel. Egypt had been engaged in campaigns into the Levant from a very early period and the illustration of the ship and model of the ships from Sahure's temple is record of the need to transport people to and from the Levantine coast and further. The only reason the popular myth about Egypt staying away from the Mediterranean is continually pushed is because some do not want to openly admit that Africans had been dominating many of the people of the Levantine coast and using the region as a source of wood, ships and shipbuilding facilities from a very early period. It is easier to ignore that evidence and just restrict Egypt's maritime legacy to the Nile and Red Sea. This keeps them from having to admit that Africans were a major force behind the development of Mediterranean maritime technology, as opposed to the standard history of all maritime technology originating with the Greeks, Romans and Phoenicians.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ But I thought historians' problem is to admit that Egyptians were indigenous Africans in the first place. If under the assumption that the Egyptians were of Asiatic or of "caucasoid" descent, would there be no problem in accepting Egyptian maritime trade or influence in the Mediterranean? Is Egypt not dubiously identified as a "Mediterranean" civilization and people in the first place?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Please explain to me the lack of Egyptian contact with other Africans along the Mediterranean shore if they sailed that sea themselves.
And I would also like to know why they hired the ancient Lebanese to do so much ship sailing stuff for them if they were so adept at it themselves.
I mean I can't find any evidence of major trade even between Egypt an Cyrenaica less lone Egypt and Carthage. Am I looking in the wrong sources (Heeren's more than a century old "trade" book)?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The ancient Egyptians left tons of evidence of their maritime achievements on the walls and in the sands of the monuments of the Old Kingdom. This evidence has been posted. The idea that we can only acknowledge such evidence if it fits into a pattern of Eurocentric distortion is the part that is causing the problem. The ONLY reason that the Egyptians went to the area of modern day Lebanon is because they had something that the Egyptians needed: WOOD. If other parts of the nearby African coast had a similar supply of such raw materials, I am sure they would have gone there too. But most of Northern Africa had the same environment as Egypt and it probably would not have had much in the way of the kind of timber they needed. And if it did, the fact that peoples around Lebanon were already WELL KNOWN for their lumber probably made it not necessary in the first place.
The other point is that just because the lumber was found outside of Egypt does not mean the expertise to BUILD BOATS with lumber came from OUTSIDE of Egypt. The oldest WOODEN PLANK BOATS in the world are found in Egypt and there is no evidence that they were built with Lebanese help, other than the wood itself. In fact, for most of the dynastic period Lebanon was part of greater Egypt and it was only during the advent of the Sea Peoples and the Hyksos that Egypt did not have control of the region and have a large presence of Egyptians in the region. During the Old Kindom there was much military activity by the Egyptians into this area and much of this had to do with resources. From this interaction and the need of wood in the area for Egyptian maritime activity, there developed a substantial amount of maritime expertise among those populations in the region. But that expertise did not come from nowhere, it came from the years of previous interaction with the Egyptians who helped develop this maritime technology in the first place, which led to that region becoming the maritime capital of the late bronze age.
The phoenecian navy is a relatively late component of Egyptian maritime activity. In the old and Middle Kingdom there WAS NO PHOENICIA to begin with and therefore if there was any maritime activity it would have been Egyptians doing it themselves or they would have had to conquer and make vassals of those who they COULD get to do the sailing for them, even though there is no evidence that this was happening in the Old or Middle Kindgdom. Yet there is evidence from the Old and Middle Kingdom of boats of all shapes and sizes and it is doubtful that the technology for such boats came from anywhere else but Egypt as no OTHER evidence for boats of such types has been found anywhere else from that period.
Most of the evidence for the Phoenicians being in the service of the Egyptian pharoahs came from the late period. Necho and Necho II represent the HIEGHT of this relationship and these pharoahs are indeed in the late period of Egypt's history, around 630 B.C., during the Saite 26th dynasty. This period is LONG AFTER the great events of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom and the exploits of Thutmosis III, when the pattern of maritime Egyptian activities and power were at their peak.
Such comments as the following:
quote: At this time, Greece was expanding her trading contacts and Necho took the opportunity to recruit displaced Ionian Greeks to form an Egyptian Navy. This was, militarily, revolutionary, for the Egyptians had an inherent distaste for and fear of the sea. While this new navy was probably not much threat to his rivals, it did lead to other benefits, such as the creation of a new African trade route. He also encouraged some Greek settlement in the Delta.
Are implicitly designed to promote a MYTH of Egyptian fear of the sea and the distortion of maritime history by focusing on the activities in the extremely LATE period of Egyptian history, when much of Egypt's power and glory were long gone and trying to use that to overshadow the impact that the previous 3000 years of Egyptian presence had in and around the Mediterranean.
Remember, it is during THIS PERIOD, under Necho, that the Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa. There can be no doubt that had it NOT been for the patronage of Egypt at this time, such a feat would NOT have occurred. And it is also certain that such a feat was accompanied by EGYPTIAN SAILORS. But of course, the link above makes no MENTION OF THIS because that is another example of the TREMENDOUS impact Egypt had on the maritime traditions of the Mediterranean. Likewise, the reason why Egypt would have expanded trade with the African coast to the West, would have been been because of the growth of the great Carthaginian city state in the region, as a military and trade power, which was NOT THERE in the Old or New Kingdoms. So, again, things are not being put into proper context. And another example of how the REAL maritime legacy of Egypt during this time, is modern research showing that the TRIREME, the backbone of later Mediterranean navies, was possibly DEVELOPED IN EGYPT under Necho, which again makes sense. Therefore, as a RESULT of the Egyptians having a large and far flung naval force, made up of VARIOUS components, chiefly the native Egyptian Navy and the Phoenicians, the Greeks who were ushered into Egyptian naval service during this time would have acquired MUCH in the way of expertise FROM EGYPT and PHOENICIA, which would have helped them to become an Empire in later times. Lets not forget that the Phoenicians were building boats first for the Egyptians, then the Greeks, Romans and Persian navies all during this period and later. But again, because of the bias in telling the facts, this legacy is lost.
Again the following comment is another good example of statements PURPOSELY designed to degenerate Egypt's technical maritime prowess:
quote: The very earliest naval battle is depicted on the carved relief decoration of a Naqada II ivory knife handle that was found at Gebel al-Arak. It shows boats with high, straight prows and sterns, usually interpreted as foreign vessels. The early Nile boats used for military purposes seem to have been primarily used for the transportation of troops up and down the Nile, and indeed, Egypt's early conflicts were mostly internal control issues.
We do find reliefs in the 5th Dynasty mortuary temple of King Sahure at Abusir depicting a sea-borne fleet that is said to have transported his army to Syria, and in the 6th Dynasty, the official Weni is said to have taken troops to Palestine in vessels described as nmiw (traveling ships).
Keelless seagoing vessels like those during the time of King Sahure (2500 BCE) traded with the Phoenician cities, importing cedar wood, Asiatic slaves and other merchandise. They were also sent as the first Egyptian trade expedition to the Land of Punt. The bipedal mast carried a vertical sail, and the bow was decorated with an eye. It was steered by six oars and had. The bow was decorated with an eye.
" I went down on the sea in a ship of one hundred and fifty cubits long and forty cubits wide, with one hundred and fifty sailors of the best of Egypt who had seen heaven and earth, and whose hearts were stronger than lions."
Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, c. 2200 BCE
However, most Egyptian vessels were not suitable for sailing in the Mediterranean or the Red Sea. The idea of sea going ships was probably imported from the Levantine seaboard, and most likely from the region of Byblos. There was certainly a strong connection in the Egyptian minds between Byblos and naval activity, since the most common word for an Egyptian sea vessel was kbnt, literally meaning "Byblos-boat".
Sea going boats used by both the Egyptians and their neighbors were relatively simple, consisting of a rectangular sail and usually one or two rudder oars. However, the Palermo Stone records the construction of a ship fifty two meters in length during the reign of king Sneferu of the 3rd Dynasty, and in the 5th Dynasty tomb of Ti at Saqqara, boat builders are depicted at work on another very large vessel.
Comments like the foreign boats had masts or the Egtyptians identified Lebanon with naval expertise are BOTH indicative of the sort of distortion that keeps the Egyptian naval impact on the Mediterranean in it's proper context.
The boats on the Gebel Arak Knife were probably LOCAL as inscriptions of boats of that type were also found elsewhere around Egypt. The reason the region around modern Lebanon was associated with maritime activities is because that is where the WOOD came from, not necessarily the technical expertise or know how to BUILD the boats. Again, the influence on the Maritime traditions in the Mediterranean went FROM EGYPT TO the mediterranean as a legacy of the Egyptian presence in and around modern Lebanon as one of their early maritime conquests and probably even an early Egyptian naval outpost. It makes sense that if the Egyptians wanted to build a presence on the ocean, as they had no local supply of wood to create such a Navy, they would have had to go where the wood was plentiful. This is backed up by the images and reliefs from the Old Kindom depicting Egyptan naval activities in the region, again, most likelly reflecting the Egyptians need to secure those wood supplies and a naval presence. And no society that buried boats in special graves and featured them so prominently in their art can be CLAIMED to be scared of the sea. That is pure and absolute nonsense. In fact almost every inscription about Egyptian sea men boast of them being BRAVE AS LIONS, which does not reflect people who were SCARED of going out to sea.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
So where is the explicit evidence I asked for, namely maritime trade with Carthage or any sea knowledge of Mediterranean and Atlantic Africa? Or any far ranging sea exploits across the sea to non-continental lands?
We already know about their coast hugging East African exploits. Kick the ballistics. I'm here to learn as well as teach.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The ancient Egyptians left tons of evidence of their maritime achievements
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The point is that trade with Carthage came late because Carthage did not appear on the map until late, in Egyptian terms. Carthage did not become a Mediterranean power until after the dynastic period was almost over. Therefore, trade with Carthage is not any sort of significant factor in the time frame of dynastic Egyptian Naval power in the ancient Mediterranean. Likewise, you have the oldest images of seaworthy ships and ships at sea in Egypt, yet somehow that doesn't count as evidence? How much evidence do you need? Or is it because the Eurocentrics said that those things were just "river boats", or ceremonial, then it doesn't count?
The time period of ancient Egyptian naval power exerting an influence on the Mediterranean goes back to 3000 B.C. and earlier. From this time period, there are few remaining ACTUAL BOATS in existence, except for those FOUND IN THE TOMBS OF EGYPT. Doesn't that tell you something? Or, because the Egyptologists say they are merely funerary boats, they don't count in Mediterranean maritime history, we should ignore them?
Well once again, the problem isn't evidence, it is the INTERPRETATION of the evidence, especially from a Eurocentric point of view that causes the problem.
Case in point. Look at the ships from the monuments of the Old Kingdom, like those of Sahure and others. They are EXACTLY the same types of ships that would be built by LATER cultures elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Think that is merely a coincidence? I think not.
Good example:
Doesn't this vase and the ships remind you of the artifacts found in the Nile Valley from over a thousand years prior?
and note how much those Minoan and Mycenean vessels resemble this, from 1000 years earlier:
In fact many of those images look like reproductions of scenes from Egyptian art 1000 years earlier. And also note how the "funny shape" of the Minoan and Mycenean boats is not called into question as to their sea worthiness, but the EXACT SAME kind of boat in Egypt from 1000 years earlier IS QUESTIONED as being sea worthy? Now who is kidding who?
Also note that some of the earliest boats allegedly used in Greece were papyrus boats. These boats were used for going to the Sea and some try and put the age of this technology in Greece back to 7000 B.C., but with no evidence. Somehow I sense a double standard, whereas Greece and other places are credited with ancient seagoing abilities with little or no evidence, while ancient Egypt with a continuous record and tradition of boats in ALL ASPECTS of their culture get no credit for ANYTHING.......
And tell me what you see. One is 1700 years older than the other, at least.
More on this vase:
quote: The meaning of the patterns on the vessels is debatable. Most Egyptologists now agree that they portray a boat bearing a standard or banner. It used to be said that such representations are not boats but watered land with a chief's residence, or a temple platform on stilts. The standards on poles are usually accepted as divine emblems or signs of clans or nomes. Some of the signs on other pots are almost identical with those of gods in historic times. The scattered zzzz signs have been variously interpreted as numbers, libation water, birds or notations of weight and the blocked triangles as hills. The motifs were not only common on pottery of this period but also occur in the earliest known example of Egyptian wall painting, a painted tomb at Hierakonpolis.
This pot is made of marl clay. Marl clay was found on the desert edge and under the cultivation near the desert was used. Pottery of this date is shaped by coiling and smoothing (You can see the coiling on the inside of the vessel.) The decoration was applied before firing. Brushes were made from reeds and the paint from oxides of iron.
The fact that these vessels do not have a flat base shows that they were either put in pot holders, suspended by a cord or placed in the sand to stay upright. The lug type handles might suggest that they were suspended when in use. The lugs might alternatively have been used to tie on a cloth lid. Unfortunately we do not know what was in them. Since they are quite small they have contained an expensive commodity.
And what do you see?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Oh and by the way, most pages on Egyptian history will say that the images from Tomb 100 in Hierankopolis from 3500 B.C. show Mesopotamian influence, yet they NEVER show ANY images of the same type from an EARLIER date. Yet the Sahara is LITTERED with such images. Again, who is fooling who? Similarly they claim that the palace facade motif is an import or the master of beasts motif is an import, yet again they show NO EARLIER examples of such images from mesopotamia.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ But I thought historians' problem is to admit that Egyptians were indigenous Africans in the first place.
It is questionable that all historians have the problem that you are referring to. Many of the studies and data posted here, are not the inventions of posters here; just that some of us are faster learners than others.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course I didn't mean all historians. Just as Doug often criticizes histroians for not accepting Egypt to be African, I assume he merely speaks of the 'traditionalist' scholars.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Are you saying AEs stopped leaving documents after ~800 BCE? What trade existed between AE and Carthage? I want to know about it.
I already admitted the only research I've read on the matter
Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren Historical researches into the politics, intercourse, and trade of the Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians London: H.G. Bohn, 1857
is way down-level and surely something even relatively slightly more up to date is available. I just want somebody to introduce me to it or present it here.
It's surely significant if there are no Egyptian records even mentioning Carthage when other lesser nations that flourished between ~800BCE - ~200BCE are on record. It implies AE knew nothing about a major empire not so terribly far away on the same continent.
I imagine the west being Amenti and tied in to the Dwat may have hampered AE trade and travel in that direction. Other than the neighboring Tjehenu, AE knew not of the peoples further west until they threatened Egypt.
There was no Egyptian sea power in the Mediterranean. Being able to build ships and using them along the Nile and to a limited offshore extent in the Red Sea does not equate to high seas maritime ventures as undertaken by ancient Aegeans and ancient Levantines of whose expeditions we have numerous records and imperial colonies in the case of the latter.
Having sea worthy vessels or the technology to produce them is not the same as actual using them and leaving records of their use.
All I'm asking for is the same kind of explicit records for Mediterranean trade or travel that we find in the overland and riverain trade to various nations throughout the length of dynastic Egypt's history.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that trade with Carthage came late because Carthage did not appear on the map until late, in Egyptian terms. Carthage did not become a Mediterranean power until after the dynastic period was almost over. Therefore, trade with Carthage is not any sort of significant factor in the time frame of dynastic Egyptian Naval power in the ancient Mediterranean. Likewise, you have the oldest images of seaworthy ships and ships at sea in Egypt, yet somehow that doesn't count as evidence? How much evidence do you need? Or is it because the Eurocentrics said that those things were just "river boats", or ceremonial, then it doesn't count?
The time period of ancient Egyptian naval power exerting an influence on the Mediterranean goes back to 3000 B.C. and earlier. From this time period, there are few remaining ACTUAL BOATS in existence, except for those FOUND IN THE TOMBS OF EGYPT. Doesn't that tell you something? Or, because the Egyptologists say they are merely funerary boats, they don't count in Mediterranean maritime history, we should ignore them?
Well once again, the problem isn't evidence, it is the INTERPRETATION of the evidence, especially from a Eurocentric point of view that causes the problem.
Case in point. Look at the ships from the monuments of the Old Kingdom, like those of Sahure and others. They are EXACTLY the same types of ships that would be built by LATER cultures elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Think that is merely a coincidence? I think not.
Good example:
Doesn't this vase and the ships remind you of the artifacts found in the Nile Valley from over a thousand years prior?
and note how much those Minoan and Mycenean vessels resemble this, from 1000 years earlier:
In fact many of those images look like reproductions of scenes from Egyptian art 1000 years earlier. And also note how the "funny shape" of the Minoan and Mycenean boats is not called into question as to their sea worthiness, but the EXACT SAME kind of boat in Egypt from 1000 years earlier IS QUESTIONED as being sea worthy? Now who is kidding who?
Also note that some of the earliest boats allegedly used in Greece were papyrus boats. These boats were used for going to the Sea and some try and put the age of this technology in Greece back to 7000 B.C., but with no evidence. Somehow I sense a double standard, whereas Greece and other places are credited with ancient seagoing abilities with little or no evidence, while ancient Egypt with a continuous record and tradition of boats in ALL ASPECTS of their culture get no credit for ANYTHING.......
Like I said, get rid of the Eurocentric nonsense and the evidence is plain to see.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ But I thought historians' problem is to admit that Egyptians were indigenous Africans in the first place.
It is questionable that all historians have the problem that you are referring to. Many of the studies and data posted here, are not the inventions of posters here; just that some of us are faster learners than others.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Are you saying AEs stopped leaving documents after ~800 BCE? What trade existed between AE and Carthage? I want to know about it.
I already admitted the only research I've read on the matter
Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren Historical researches into the politics, intercourse, and trade of the Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians London: H.G. Bohn, 1857
is way down-level and surely something even relatively slightly more up to date is available. I just want somebody to introduce me to it or present it here.
It's surely significant if there are no Egyptian records even mentioning Carthage when other lesser nations that flourished between ~800BCE - ~200BCE are on record. It implies AE knew nothing about a major empire not so terribly far away on the same continent.
I imagine the west being Amenti and tied in to the Dwat may have hampered AE trade and travel in that direction. Other than the neighboring Tjehenu, AE knew not of the peoples further west until they threatened Egypt.
There was no Egyptian sea power in the Mediterranean. Being able to build ships and using them along the Nile and to a limited offshore extent in the Red Sea does not equate to high seas maritime ventures as undertaken by ancient Aegeans and ancient Levantines of whose expeditions we have numerous records and imperial colonies in the case of the latter.
Having sea worthy vessels or the technology to produce them is not the same as actual using them and leaving records of their use.
All I'm asking for is the same kind of explicit records for Mediterranean trade or travel that we find in the overland and riverain trade to various nations throughout the length of dynastic Egypt's history.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that trade with Carthage came late because Carthage did not appear on the map until late, in Egyptian terms. Carthage did not become a Mediterranean power until after the dynastic period was almost over. Therefore, trade with Carthage is not any sort of significant factor in the time frame of dynastic Egyptian Naval power in the ancient Mediterranean. Likewise, you have the oldest images of seaworthy ships and ships at sea in Egypt, yet somehow that doesn't count as evidence? How much evidence do you need? Or is it because the Eurocentrics said that those things were just "river boats", or ceremonial, then it doesn't count?
The time period of ancient Egyptian naval power exerting an influence on the Mediterranean goes back to 3000 B.C. and earlier. From this time period, there are few remaining ACTUAL BOATS in existence, except for those FOUND IN THE TOMBS OF EGYPT. Doesn't that tell you something? Or, because the Egyptologists say they are merely funerary boats, they don't count in Mediterranean maritime history, we should ignore them?
Well once again, the problem isn't evidence, it is the INTERPRETATION of the evidence, especially from a Eurocentric point of view that causes the problem.
Case in point. Look at the ships from the monuments of the Old Kingdom, like those of Sahure and others. They are EXACTLY the same types of ships that would be built by LATER cultures elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Think that is merely a coincidence? I think not.
Good example:
Doesn't this vase and the ships remind you of the artifacts found in the Nile Valley from over a thousand years prior?
and note how much those Minoan and Mycenean vessels resemble this, from 1000 years earlier:
In fact many of those images look like reproductions of scenes from Egyptian art 1000 years earlier. And also note how the "funny shape" of the Minoan and Mycenean boats is not called into question as to their sea worthiness, but the EXACT SAME kind of boat in Egypt from 1000 years earlier IS QUESTIONED as being sea worthy? Now who is kidding who?
Also note that some of the earliest boats allegedly used in Greece were papyrus boats. These boats were used for going to the Sea and some try and put the age of this technology in Greece back to 7000 B.C., but with no evidence. Somehow I sense a double standard, whereas Greece and other places are credited with ancient seagoing abilities with little or no evidence, while ancient Egypt with a continuous record and tradition of boats in ALL ASPECTS of their culture get no credit for ANYTHING.......
Like I said, get rid of the Eurocentric nonsense and the evidence is plain to see.
I don't know bro Takrur but I think you are missing what I have been saying.
Going back to 2500 BC where is there ANY evidence of ANY sort of boats, maritime trade or activity ANYWHERE on earth? Boats, ropes and other sorts of materials don't often last 5,000 years for us to examine. Hence the oldest plank boats in the world are those found IN THE TOMBS OF EGYPT. The tombs of the Old Kingdom have images of the Egyptians sailing including ON THE SEA. The first voyages to Punt were in the OLD KINGDOM.
quote: It is untrue, as Hatshepsut claimed, that her voyage was the first in history. It has been an ancient tradition to undertake that trip since the 4th dynasty, when a son of "Khufu" (Cheops) did it. Other voyages were mentioned during the reign of "Sahu-Ra" in the early 5th dynasty, when Egyptians began trading with the Land of Punt. Another expedition has been mentioned during the reign of "Pepi II" (6th dynasty). The caravan leader, "Harkhuf" has written to the 9-year old king describing a dancing dwarf he was bringing back to Egypt.
The monuments of Sahure also show them sailing to the Levant. There is plenty of evidence showing trade with peoples around the Mediterranean at this time. These are some of the oldest records of sea commerce anywhere on earth. All of this is 1500 years prior to the existence of a Carthage.
quote: Sneferu had a number of children from his wives. Other than Hetepheres, he had at least two other wives who gave him six children. The evidence suggests that the sons of his first wife were buried in Maidum, before he moved to the newer burial grounds in Dashur. No one knows why he didn't move back to Saqqara, like everyone else.
His military campaigns against the Nubians and Libyans are recorded on the Palermo stone, and he began to trade with the Mediterranean nations. To supply Egypt with the cedar wood they needed for building the royal barges and doors of palaces, he sent a fleet to Lebanon to trade for it. Like previous pharaohs, he led expeditions to the Sinai -- and was later revered as a god in that area.
quote: Although there are very few Egyptian artifacts from Canaanite contexts that can be dated securely to the Twelfth Dynasty, one particularly notable exception is a series of 47 bullae, or clay sealings, found in a sealed – and hence archaeologically secure – fill at the site of Ashkelon on the souther coast of present-day Israel. These bullae would have been used to seal clay jars prior to the shipment of commodities, and the very prosaic nature of the sealings also implies that, in addition to the highly visible and highly valuable ‘luxury’ goods, such as the gold objects found at Byblos, subsistence commodities were being transshipped in bulk throughout the eastern Mediterranean as well. The importance of the exchange in bulk items as well as in luxury or precious goods has a significant bearing on the types of exchange systems in the ancient world, and may very well also be reflected in the type of transport, contact, and shipping undertaken by these polities.
Finally, both Cypriote and Minoan pottery has been found in Egypt and at Canaanite sites, while Egyptian material has been excavated from Middle Bronze Age contexts on both Cyprus and Crete. The presence of this imported material clearly indicates exchange and contact, but, it should be noted that, without additional evidence or supporting materials, the nature of this exchange and the mechanisms by which it was carried out remains almost completely unknown.
First King of the Fourth Dynasty Alternate spellings: Sneferu, Snofru, Soris
Name of ship(s) he sailed on: Snefru is credited as possibly using cedar wood to build Nile River boats up to about 50 meters (about 170 ft.) in length
Primary Goal: To establish trading routes along the Mediterranean, and to advance Egypt’s economy Achievement: Snefru is credited with being the first Pharaoh of Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty (about 2600-2450 BCE). He ruled for an estimated 24 years. He was not declared king through birthright like most kings, but was declared king through marriage. He established trading routes along the Mediterranean, and greatly advanced his empire. Of all of his contributions, his most famous is the Bent Pyramid of Dahshur.
So what does Carthage have to do with the development and history of Egyptian maritime capabilities? Also, I already posted images showing how later Minoan art shows ships remarkably similar to those of Khufu. Do you think that this is a mere coincidence? I also showed you the ancient paintings from old kingdom tombs and vases that are almost exactly like those of later Minoan art and vases. Again what are you saying that this is mere coincidence? What more evidence do you need? Or are you saying you need "official" word from Western European writers who will say that the boats of Khufu are the predecessors of the Minoans and show that there was influence from Egypt to the Mediterranean? Of course they won't do that and it isn't because of lack of evidence.
And where did you get the idea that Egypt was not trading with Carthage? Pharoah Necho and Necho II both had or initiated trading relationships with Carthage.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
ImageMaster
You're not coming from where I'm going.
Why you even mentioned western writers is beyond me when what I've asked for is AE text. What's your problem that you want to besmirch me as dependent on the west (which by the way we all are as we all read and build on the writings of western educated scholars) because you can't write one pro-African paragraph without dragging in your anti-white biases.
Unlike you I can write African independent of even mentioning Europe/European Americas just the way self-confident historians of other nations and cultures can do without constantly harping on how bad Euros were to them -- sheesh how many times we gotta hear that, we know that part by heart -- or using them as some great majestic yardstick to measure up to. That's your baggage. I chose to travel without it.
------------------------------------------
All forum members
I'll repost my response to the subject header (and the fact that Egypt did not have wide ranging navies as did other contemporaneous maritime nations) none of the questions therein have even been attempted answered by anyone yet.
And please don't tell me about the resounding naval defeat of the invading Sea Peoples which was executed in Egyptian perimetre waters not at high sea. Egypt just simply didn't use her vessels in a manner of demonstrative sea power anywhere far from home.
I'm not generalizing or anachronistically flattening all eras into one dimension.
There are specific things I want to know and no one has helped me to learn them. I'm talking recorded trade (routes) not sociology.
1 - lack of contact with Mediterranean Africans 2 - hiring of Lebanese ships, shipping, and shippers 3 - primary documents of trade with _____ Cyrenaica _____ Tripolitania _____ Tunisia _____ Algeria _____ Morocco
quote:Please explain to me the lack of Egyptian contact with other Africans along the Mediterranean shore if they sailed that sea themselves.
And I would also like to know why they hired the ancient Lebanese to do so much ship sailing stuff for them if they were so adept at it themselves.
I mean I can't find any evidence of major trade even between Egypt an Cyrenaica less lone Egypt and Carthage. Am I looking in the wrong sources (Heeren's more than a century old "trade" book)?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I where you diverge is in your definition of "contemporaneous". You are talking about civilizations that did not exist prior to 1000 B.C. for the most part and those that did exist we do have records for trade with Egypt. So the question SHOULD be what happened to the Egyptian navy between the time of Rameses II and the 23rd Dynasty.
The period after the 21st dynasty is generally considered as the LATE PERIOD and most define this time as a period of GREAT DECLINE in Egypt, relative to its power and expanse in the "golden age" of earlier periods. Therefore, you are talking about an Egypt that did not have control over the wood and timber of Byblos. Did not have the powerful army and navy of prior periods and who did not have the ability to control large areas outside its own borders. This is the period that saw the rise of the Phoenicians, Carthagenians, Numidians, Mauretanians and other groups WHO DID NOT EXIST when Egypt was in its "golden age".
The cultures that DID exist DID trade and have contact with Egypt and the evidence is there for it. So why are you asking about the power and might of the Egyptian navy when Egypt was in the last stages of its existence and nominally under the control of various foreign Empires? And why would you equate the status and power of Egypt at this waning point of its civilization with Egypt at the height of its power?
Egypt had a navy from the OLD KINGDOM and they SENT BOATS to the sea to TRADE with those cultures and people that existed at the time in the Mediterranean as well as along the Red Sea. The fact that we don't have a full archeaological record of every ship and every artifact that may have been sent via sea at this time is to be expected as there isn't much in the way of maritime evidence for ANY culture from this period, due to its antiquity. But we do have A TON of evidence IN EGYPT from this time, on tomb walls in writing and in the burials of the boats themselves. So again, what are you saying that all these boats never went to sea? How do you know that? As another writer put it, there is LESS evidence in terms of actual boats and other "maritime" artifacts from the Agean in the time period of the Old Kingdom, yet most authors say these people travelled the seas. Yet and still you have TONS of boats and other evidence from Egypt and somehow people say "there isn't enough evidence". I mean what in the world do you expect from 5000 years ago? And just think, if the Egyptians DIDN'T bury boats and DIDN'T bury models and DIDN'T make artwork and carvings in their burials, they would think they had NO NAVY AT ALL sea or river.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Please, if you can't answer my questions don't go on with your generalizations telling me things I knew about decades ago and acting like I said AE knew absolutely nothing about shipbuilding or never launched a vessel into the Nile or Red Sea.
I'm asking about littoral North Africa and you've proven by your replies that you know absolutely nothing about sea relations between ancient Egypt and the ancient North African littoral.
Thank you for re-emphasizing my lack of textual or pictorial resources left on record by the AEs of any such enterprises.
Now can someone please fill in the gap if possible.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ImageMaster
All forum members
I'll repost my response to the subject header (and the fact that Egypt did not have wide ranging navies as did other contemporaneous maritime nations) none of the questions therein have even been attempted answered by anyone yet.
And please don't tell me about the resounding naval defeat of the invading Sea Peoples which was executed in Egyptian perimetre waters not at high sea. Egypt just simply didn't use her vessels in a manner of demonstrative sea power anywhere far from home.
I'm not generalizing or anachronistically flattening all eras into one dimension.
There are specific things I want to know and no one has helped me to learn them. I'm talking recorded trade (routes) not sociology.
1 - lack of contact with Mediterranean Africans 2 - hiring of Lebanese ships, shipping, and shippers 3 - primary documents of trade with _____ Cyrenaica _____ Tripolitania _____ Tunisia _____ Algeria _____ Morocco
Don't get me wrong, but I fundamentally disagree with what seems to be your premise. One of them being that there is no evidence of Egyptian sea battles far from home and the other that if they didn't trade with other coastal Africans by sea, that they somehow did not have a capable Navy....
Thutmosis III is one Egyptian that used ships far from home, with some historians going so far as to say he was the father of the combined arms battle by using ships in his campaigns in the Northern Levant. This is one reason he is called the Napoleon of Egypt. Therefore, the Egyptians had a navy, they used it far from home and whether or not they had extensive sea trading networks with other Northern African states in the Dynastic period from 3500 B.C. to 1000 BC does not change this.
quote: This first campaign revealed Thutmose to be the military genius of his time. He understood the value of logistics and lines of supply, the necessity of rapid movement and sudden surprise attack. He lead by example and was also probably the first person in history to really utilise sea-power to support his campaigns.
Map showing Megiddo Megiddo was his first objective because it was a key point and had to be taken at all costs. When he reached Aaruna Thutmose held a council with all his generals. There were two routes to Megiddo a long, easy and level road around the hills, which the enemy expected Thutmose to take, and a route which was narrow, difficult and cut through the hills. His generals advised him to take the easy road through the hills, saying "horse must follow behind horse and man behind man also, and our vanguard will be engaged while our rearguard is at Aaruna without fighting" But Thutmose's reply to this was "As I live, as I am the beloved of Ra and praised by my father Amon, I will go on the narrow road. Let those who will, go on the roads you have mentioned; and let anyone who will, follow my Majesty"
quote: ANCIENT EGYPTIAN JOINT OPERATIONS IN THE LEBANON UNDER THUTMOSE III (1451-1438 BCE)
Most people are aware that the Ancient Egyptians conducted military operations in Syria-Palestine, some may have heard mention of King Thutmose III at the Battle of Megiddo, but few will have heard about how Egyptian naval forces influenced events ashore during Thutmose III's subsequent operations in the Lebanon.(footnote 1)
The history of Syria-Palestine aptly demonstrates the strategic advantage that lay with the maritime powers that controlled these waters. During the Late Bronze Age, Thutmose III's ability to maintain sea control in the Eastern Mediterranean enabled him to effectively project Egyptian military power ashore in the Lebanon. It is a truism, confirmed during the Crusades, World War I, and the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, that armies cannot operate effectively in the Syria-Palestine littoral without fleets controlling the adjacent Mediterranean Sea.
By the time of Thutmose III the Egyptians had a long established overland trade route across the Sinai, coupled with a strong influence over the cities of southern Palestine. They also had a mature maritime trading relationship with the coastal cities of the Lebanon, especially Byblos (about 32 km north of modern Beirut).
Almost all historians acknowledge Thutmosis III as one of the fathers of the sea land battle that became typical of later Mediterranean warfare. And he was only following the precedent established by those who PRECEDED him in the Old Kingdom.
I agree that there isn't much info about any maritime trade contact between Egypt and the following countries because the first credible evidence of sea commerce with these people started with the Phoenicians somewhere around or after 900 B.C.: Cyrenaica Tripolitania Tunisia Algeria Morocco
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
ImageMaster
Thanks for the above tipoff.
It's a holiday weekend and the official end of summer in the USA but if you have the time can you drudge up some images from Sahure's mortuary temple, Wenis' causeway, or from el-Lisht depicting Old Kingdom seagoing vessels? Thanks.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
I think I'm going to look up some stuff on West African boats.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
bump
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
speakin of boats there's an informationally awesome boat thread, here:
^which comes after storm front [.] org /
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
One of the next things I plan on investigating is Malian expiditions into the Atlantic... Clyde?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Please explain to me the lack of Egyptian contact with other Africans along the Mediterranean shore if they sailed that sea themselves.
And I would also like to know why they hired the ancient Lebanese to do so much ship sailing stuff for them if they were so adept at it themselves.
I mean I can't find any evidence of major trade even between Egypt an Cyrenaica less lone Egypt and Carthage. Am I looking in the wrong sources (Heeren's more than a century old "trade" book)?
"why they hired the ancient Lebanese"
"ancient Lebanese" is that anything like ancient Iraqis, ancient Iranians, ancient Turks, ancient Europeans?
Funny - I never heard of any of them. Which book did you find it in?
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:All forum members
I'm not generalizing or anachronistically flattening all eras into one dimension.
There are specific things I want to know and no one has helped me to learn them. I'm talking recorded trade (routes) not sociology.
1 - lack of contact with Mediterranean Africans 2 - hiring of Lebanese ships, shipping, and shippers 3 - primary documents of trade with _____ Cyrenaica _____ Tripolitania _____ Tunisia _____ Algeria _____ Morocco
Please explain to me the lack of Egyptian contact with other Africans along the Mediterranean shore if they sailed that sea themselves.
And I would also like to know why they hired the ancient Lebanese to do so much ship sailing stuff for them if they were so adept at it themselves.
I mean I can't find any evidence of major trade even between Egypt an Cyrenaica less lone Egypt and Carthage. Am I looking in the wrong sources (Heeren's more than a century old "trade" book)?
Documented sources are thin on wide ranging AE maritime expeditions in the sense you refer to. Perhaps specialized academic sources might show more but Time-Life has an older 1981 book out called “The Ancient Mariners.” It doesn’t show continent-spanning voyages by the AE’s like famous Chinese Admiral Cheng Ho, but it does indicate that there was extensive trade and contact throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, and also into the Aegean and the Persian Gulf.
There is little information on Northwest Africa in the book or even on the web re direct Egyptian trade. Perhaps the northwest region had to await expansion of supply and demand, and better ships before it was drawn more fully into overall Mediterranean commerce. The Phonecian and Greek expansion, coming long after Egyptian developments may have provided the impetus. The rise of Carthage certainly boosted trade in the Northwest area, not to mention the resources of inland Africa drawn upon by that city state- for trade or war (Hannibal's famous Numidian cavalry is just one example).
As for documents, the book does mention papyrus journals kept by AE merchants and or officials. One documents a shipwreck in the Red Sea, another a clash with pirates near Byblos. Carved inscriptions on stone also record Egyptian vessels, trade and movements, and clay models have been found in Mesopotamia similar to Egyptian boats. There is some documentary evidence suggesting that the Egyptians bought entire vessels from Greek or Lebanese (today’s terms) suppliers. In the Armana letters for example, is a request from a pharoah to the King of Alashiya (Cyprus) to build ships for the Egyptian navy. However it should be noted that the Egyptians built a large number of sea-going vessels themselves during the New Kingdom, using imported lumber.
Most likely the pharoahs found it cheaper to simply contract out a portion of their building program to foreigner builders who had ample supplies of suitable wood and workers in their native countries. It would make perfect sense in a land where heavy forestation for supplies of lumber were scarce. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/navy.htm
You are generally correct that the AEs stayed in the eastern Mediterranean zone, compared to say the Chinese, or even the Polynesian mariners, who in their canoes, not only spanned massive areas of Pacific, but even reached the frozen wastes of Antartica ( a Maori war canoe according to the 1984 Encyclopedia Britannica article ‘Antartica’).
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Funny - I never heard of any of them. Which book did you find it in?
Ancient Lebanese is like saying ancient "Egyptian" or ancient Chinese, one of which you've typed on here, correct?
So why front?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Uh, getting back to the topic...
The ancient Greeks made it clear in their writings that the Egyptians were the first people in the world to build ships and seafare. This also reminds me of Hebrew/Biblical writings specifically in Genesis which state that Egypt produced the Caphtorim (Cretans) and another group of people called Caslohim which in turn produced the 1st generation of Philistines (as opposed to the 2nd generation of later Philistines who were a different people).
Takruri do you have any more info on this?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^There WAS an ancient Egypt, there WAS an ancient China. There was NOT an ancient Lebanon; that country did not exist until 1943.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Not sure exactly what you're asking put start a thread for it or find and continue a thread that's dealt with it and we can take it from there.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Uh, getting back to the topic...
The ancient Greeks made it clear in their writings that the Egyptians were the first people in the world to build ships and seafare. This also reminds me of Hebrew/Biblical writings specifically in Genesis which state that Egypt produced the Caphtorim (Cretans) and another group of people called Caslohim which in turn produced the 1st generation of Philistines (as opposed to the 2nd generation of later Philistines who were a different people).
Takruri do you have any more info on this?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
If you ever cracked open a history book you might be dangerous. Until then, לְּבָנֹן for those who may want to know factual info appears in the oldest of documents in Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt where it's transliterated as RMNN.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^There WAS an ancient Egypt, there WAS an ancient China. There was NOT an ancient Lebanon; that country did not exist until 1943.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^That's Veerryy impressive, Bamboozle them with Bullsh!t eh, nice, very nice. But the question was NOT לְּבָנֹן or RMNN, it was Lebanon.
If there is anyone out there that can read squiggly lines, does that say what I think it says, i.e. Dumb-asses, they have no clue that I am a homeboy in south central L.A.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Are really that ignorant of ancient languages that you don't know what word לְּבָנֹן and RMNN are? Yes, of course you're that ignorant, and worse.
How does one verify a quesionable ancient word? By perusing ancient nomenclature in context within ancient texts.
You've just admitted you're a pure dumbass farting opinion unbacked by primary documentation hoping for mass appeal by grandstanding for supposed fellow ignoramuses rooting for a SCLA fakeass homeboy.
Not sorry to say, more is expected of you HERE. And SCLA folk would whoop your ass for fronting on them being nothing but stupid stereotypes.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^There WAS an ancient Egypt, there WAS an ancient China. There was NOT an ancient Lebanon; that country did not exist until 1943.
Ancient "Chinese" didn't call themselves "Chinese" and as for Egypt, don't tell anyone but there was an entirely different state there.
In sincerity for those who don't know, TaWy/Kemet/Ta Mery =/= Arab Republic of Egypt.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Are really that ignorant of ancient languages that you don't know what word לְּבָנֹן and RMNN are? Yes, of course you're that ignorant, and worse.
How does one verify a quesionable ancient word? By perusing ancient nomenclature in context within ancient texts.
You've just admitted you're a pure dumbass farting opinion unbacked by primary documentation hoping for mass appeal by grandstanding for supposed fellow ignoramuses rooting for a SCLA fakeass homeboy.
Not sorry to say, more is expected of you HERE. And SCLA folk would whoop your ass for fronting on them being nothing but stupid stereotypes.
WOW; What a mouthful! he he, but you still didn't answer the question. i.e. what word or words in the English language correlate with the squiggly lines לְּבָנֹן or RMNN, that mean the English word Lebanon, OR even translates back to an entity which corresponds to modern Lebanon.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Takruri, why do you even waste your time with this clown above?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Not sure exactly what you're asking put start a thread for it or find and continue a thread that's dealt with it and we can take it from there.
Since you seem to be familiar with what Greek texts say about Africa and the Levant, I thought you would know which specific text by which author spoke of the first seafarers coming from Egypt.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Uh, getting back to the topic...
The ancient Greeks made it clear in their writings that the Egyptians were the first people in the world to build ships and seafare. This also reminds me of Hebrew/Biblical writings specifically in Genesis which state that Egypt produced the Caphtorim (Cretans) and another group of people called Caslohim which in turn produced the 1st generation of Philistines (as opposed to the 2nd generation of later Philistines who were a different people).
I don't think the Egyptians were the first to build watercraft or use them on rivers, seas or oceans. Such vessels were independently invented in a variety of places. Dugout or reed canoes or rafts for example have been around a long time. Old vessels too have been found in Mesopotamia. The Greek writers of course could only speak from their limited experience.
As to the Genesis narrative, Mizraim (Egypt) produced the Casluhim, out of whom came the Caphorium and Phillistines. Casluhim would be the forerunner of either Philistines or Capthorim. Do you have any sources showing the Capthorim to be linked to the Cretans or Minoans? Or to the 2 generations of Philistines? Was the second different from the first produced by Mizraim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casluhim shows one writer who links the forerunning Casluhim to the Colchians of the Black Sea region.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
That's for your dumb ass to figure out, masturbator. Quit acting like JackOff-enbach and learn, baby learn. Then you can be on the way to add something intelligent to a discussion instead of fabricated from the crack of your ass bullshit. Lebanon not existing until 1943, hah! That's the stupidest **** you've posted to date, jink.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Are really that ignorant of ancient languages that you don't know what word לְּבָנֹן and RMNN are? Yes, of course you're that ignorant, and worse.
How does one verify a quesionable ancient word? By perusing ancient nomenclature in context within ancient texts.
You've just admitted you're a pure dumbass farting opinion unbacked by primary documentation hoping for mass appeal by grandstanding for supposed fellow ignoramuses rooting for a SCLA fakeass homeboy.
Not sorry to say, more is expected of you HERE. And SCLA folk would whoop your ass for fronting on them being nothing but stupid stereotypes.
WOW; What a mouthful! he he, but you still didn't answer the question. i.e. what word or words in the English language correlate with the squiggly lines לְּבָנֹן or RMNN, that mean the English word Lebanon, OR even translates back to an entity which corresponds to modern Lebanon.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I dunno. The kid's got potential. If only he'd stop jackin off and reserve his vitality for mentality. Well, at least now I know why he starts off half decent then goes half cocked. It's true, masturbation damages the brain!
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Takruri, why do you even waste your time with this clown above?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Sticks, stones, and Mary Palmer; but I'm still waiting for לְּבָנֹן and RMNN.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
And wait you will you, since you can't understand what was already given to you. It's called primary evidence from the language of the time, the people, and the place itself. Once again and pay attention jr
If you ever cracked open a history book you might be dangerous. Until then, לְּבָנֹן for those who may want to know factual info appears in the oldest of documents in 1 - Mesopotamia, 2 - the Levant, and 3 - Egypt where it's transliterated as RMNN.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: And wait you will you, since you can't understand what was already given to you. It's called primary evidence from the language of the time, the people, and the place itself. Once again and pay attention jr
If you ever cracked open a history book you might be dangerous. Until then, [b]לְּבָנֹן [b]for those who may want to know factual info appears in the oldest of documents in 1 - Mesopotamia, 2 - the Levant, and 3 - Egypt where it's transliterated as RMNN.
Sorry pal, but the ancient Mesopotamian's used cuneiform NOT the squiggly lines thing.
But for the sake of argument, if they did use the squiggly lines, What books would I find it in?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Now repeat after me.
Please Mr. al~Takruri, teach me the ancient Assyrian script and lexicon and the ancient Egyptian lexicon, I'm sorry I said there's no ancient Lebanon when I don't even know any ancient script or any ancient language nor delved into any ancient primary text for supportive material to back my asinine false assertion nor can I even recognize the word Lebanon in their own ancient Semitic language. And on top of that I can't apply a multi-disciplinary approach because I was too busy dating Rosy Palm to apply myself to linguistics so I can't understand how 'l' & 'r' and 'b' & 'm' interchange from one language to another as alveolars and bilabials respectively.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: I don't think the Egyptians were the first to build watercraft or use them on rivers, seas or oceans. Such vessels were independently invented in a variety of places. Dugout or reed canoes or rafts for example have been around a long time. Old vessels too have been found in Mesopotamia. The Greek writers of course could only speak from their limited experience.
The Greeks never said the Egyptians were the first to build watercrafts in general but that they were the first to build large seafaring vessels. Of course this is all according to their lengeds.
quote:As to the Genesis narrative, Mizraim (Egypt) produced the Casluhim, out of whom came the Caphorium and Phillistines. Casluhim would be the forerunner of either Philistines or Capthorim. Do you have any sources showing the Capthorim to be linked to the Cretans or Minoans? Or to the 2 generations of Philistines? Was the second different from the first produced by Mizraim?
That's somewhat inaccurate. The Table of Nations specifically says that only the Philistim came from the Casluhim and that the Caphtorim came directly from Mizraim as Caphtorim did, making Caphtor and Caslum siblings.
Anyway, the reason why I point this out is that it not only verifies the Greek legends but that it also verifies the archaeological findings of Evans and others in Crete and in other parts of the Bronze Age southern Mediterranean that link them with Egypt. I'll have to cite a couple of books of read to show this.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Now repeat after me.
Please Mr. al~Takruri, teach me the ancient Assyrian script and lexicon and the ancient Egyptian lexicon, I'm sorry I said there's no ancient Lebanon when I don't even know any ancient script or any ancient language nor delved into any ancient primary text for supportive material to back my asinine false assertion nor can I even recognize the word Lebanon in their own ancient Semitic language. And on top of that I can't apply a multi-disciplinary approach because I was too busy dating Rosy Palm to apply myself to linguistics so I can't understand how 'l' & 'r' and 'b' & 'm' interchange from one language to another as alveolars and bilabials respectively.
Sorry Takruri, but I doubt the moron knows anything about linguistics let alone phonetic shift theories such as Grimm's Law which states a shift in consonants like l to r and vice-versa.
Therefore it's not hard to see that RMNN/ R-M-N-N pronounced something like 'Remenan' could become 'Lebanon' in several thousand years.
And why is that Mike??
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Damn DJ, you're spoiling my cat and mouse fun.
But actually RMNN is how AEs wrote the foreign (to them) word לְּבָנֹן .
But a possibly associated in root meaning word, Libu, did undergo the process you delineated. At least for the first phoneme. I.e., Rebu became Libu became Libya.
quote:Originally posted by Dj:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Now repeat after me.
Please Mr. al~Takruri, teach me the ancient Assyrian script and lexicon and the ancient Egyptian lexicon, I'm sorry I said there's no ancient Lebanon when I don't even know any ancient script or any ancient language nor delved into any ancient primary text for supportive material to back my asinine false assertion nor can I even recognize the word Lebanon in their own ancient Semitic language. And on top of that I can't apply a multi-disciplinary approach because I was too busy dating Rosy Palm to apply myself to linguistics so I can't understand how 'l' & 'r' and 'b' & 'm' interchange from one language to another as alveolars and bilabials respectively.
Sorry Takruri, but I doubt the moron knows anything about linguistics let alone phonetic shift theories such as Grimm's Law which states a shift in consonants like l to r and vice-versa.
Therefore it's not hard to see that RMNN/ R-M-N-N pronounced something like 'Remenan' could become 'Lebanon' in several thousand years.
And why is that Mike??
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Sorry girls, you're not squirming out of it like that. The argument is NOT that there was a Lebanon, the Cedars of Lebanon, referring to Mount Lebanon, are well known in ancient text.
The great "SAGES" he he, quote was: "And I would also like to know why they hired the ancient Lebanese to do so much ship sailing stuff for them if they were so adept at it themselves".
That statement refers to a Lebanese PEOPLE, AS IN A NATION, get it?
But just in case you girls don't get it: There is a mount Everest, but no nation called Everest, now do you get it????
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL @ the idiot's backtracking. Let's see how far that will get him... Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^Another related thread.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote: Pirogues are still made just out of town, by Bozo craftsman ... designs identical to that noted by Arab travelers in the 12th century ... up to 20 meters (22 yards) long, very stable, roofed with arching boughs covered with thatch ...
Marq de Villers, Sheila Hirtle Into Africa: A Journey Through the Ancient Empires Key Porter Books,1999 p. 257
From the research of Saidi_Aswan_Egy
I knew I saw that name on here before somewhere! (I've since the book)
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL @ the idiot's backtracking. Let's see how far that will get him...
You don't read very well, do you?? That explains a lot of things.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Recently uncapped whilst imbibing iced tea:
"Real Fact" #177 The first sailing boats were built in Egypt. Get all the "Real Facts" at snapple.com
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Gregory P. Gilbert Ancient Egyptian Sea Power and the Origin of Maritime Forces Australia: Sea Power Centre, 2008
P R E FAC E Despite my early reservations that the extent of Ancient Egyptian sea power was already widely known, it did not take long before I realised that what I have taken for granted for some 25 years or so, was either doubted or denied by many scholars. Hopefully this book will help to educate those who believed that sea power did not exist prior to the introduction of specialist warships, and in the process it will encourage others to look deeper into the many historical experiences that may have contributed to our understanding of maritime strategy and sea power but that have tended to be overlooked in the Western intellectual tradition.
I wish to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to Captain Richard McMillan, CSC, RAN, Captain Peter Leavy, RAN, Dr David Stevens and the staff at the Sea Power Centre –Australia (SPC-A) for their encouragement and support during the planning, research and writing phases of this project. I am especially grateful to Andrea Argirides whose interest in the Ancient Mediterranean helped to reinvigorate my efforts whenever my own thought processes began to sag.
This work was extensively edited and prepared for publication by Andrew Forbes and Michelle Lovi from the SPC-A, who deserve special credit for making sense of the final product. Of course, all remaining errors and omissions are my own.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
F O R E W O R D . . . . It is a truism that Egyptologists and naval historians do not often mix. Egyptologists study the art, archaeology and history of Ancient Egypt. They often tend to believe in Ancient Egypt as a specialisation that is significantly different from other regions of study, that many of the philosophical developments within the art, archaeology and history disciplines are commonly ignored, being classified as ‘not relevant to Ancient Egypt’. The upshot of this is that much of the detailed information on Ancient Egypt tends to remain in the hands of the Egyptologists, while public demand for all things ‘Egyptian’ has generated large numbers of popular books of varying quality, which by their very nature do not contain the detailed information that support new discourses on Ancient Egyptian history. This study aims to bring the relevant information on Ancient Egyptian sea power together in a form that historians and naval professionals should find interesting and informative. It is both a source book and a vehicle for new models and interpretations for the origins of naval forces. It is hoped that in time naval practitioners, naval historians and students of maritime affairs will appreciate the full tapestry of Ancient Egyptian sea power. In future, Egyptologists, ancient historians or the interested public may wish to make their own contribution to the better understanding and the continued relevance of Ancient Egyptian sea power.
This study is the first step in a process that is intended to bring international thinking on sea power to the fore. As such, the research is intended as a preliminary study of the most readily available sources. It is not intended to be a comprehensive collection of all references to Ancient Egyptian maritime activities, but rather the more obscure sources have been put aside in favour of those that support the sea power message. The resulting narrative interpretation is thus also evolving, and all constructive feedback is most welcome. This study is somewhat like looking at a long coastline through binoculars, while one may focus on one small landing place ashore, it should not be inferred that the rest of the coastline does not exist. Sea power was just one aspect within the multifaceted society that was Ancient Egypt.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
alTakruri, did you write that post with a tin cup in your other hand.
chaaaaange, chaaaaange, can you spare some change?
: )
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Change is inevitable and a real man marks the change when his horizons have been broadened.
quote:This is a song about change, you see We say many things about the changing aspects of our lives We say that since change is inevitable, we should direct the change Rather than simply continue to go through the change We sing a song of revolution as change To the brothers in the Caribbean and Africa, Where I'm Coming from
Gil Scott-Heron
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
O U T L I N E This study provides an overview of Ancient Egyptian sea power by examining the written and archaeological evidence to develop an explanation for the origin of naval forces. The applicability of sea power during the formation of the Egyptian state is considered, as is the important contribution of naval forces to the rise of central government and state building processes. Through examination of a broad range of Egyptian cultural customs and beliefs it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of maritime Egypt. As with modern naval forces, much of what is common practice at sea is often left unsaid and unrecorded. The depth of the naval influence on a maritime state is often visible within their image of themselves, their gods and their language. Changes in Ancient Egyptian maritime technologies are also examined to understand better the boat and ship capabilities used by the Ancient Egyptians. A review of the maritime operations of the Ancient Egyptian naval forces follows. The modern concept of a span of maritime operations, including military, diplomatic and constabulary, is used to categorise and evaluate Ancient Egyptian operations. This section, along with the associated listing contained in Appendix 1, reveals the extent and variety of the evidence of the influence of sea power on Ancient Egyptian history. Despite a few minor differences, a somewhat surprising degree of similarity may be observed between the naval activities of the Ancient Egyptians and those undertaken by today’s navies. The information evaluated will be used to form an interpretive model for the origin of naval forces in Ancient Egypt.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
P R E H I T O R I C B O A T S The earliest evidence for the use of boats in Ancient Egypt is circumstantial. Fish bones found at the campsites of prehistoric hunter/gatherers include larger deep-water fish that can only be caught by deep-water fishing in some form of boat.14 The earliest boats were rafts made from papyrus reeds, similar to those depicted in later tomb scenes depicting fishing and fowling. Temporary papyrus boats enabled hunter/gatherer groups to travel across and along the river between seasonal camp sites. Egyptian mythology often refers to the use of papyrus boats by the gods, during the ‘time of the gods’ that is before the formation of the Egyptian state. Papyrus boats continued to be used in Pharaonic times for fishing and fowling along the river, but they also retained their religious symbolism as the craft used by the forces of order who entered the wetlands to defeat the forces of chaos.
As the Egyptians adopted Neolithic lifeways (approximately 5500 BCE), including the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry, they continued their reliance on boats to utilise the resources of the Nile. It is likely that wooden boats were first developed at this time, with sedentary villagers investing greater effort to construct more permanent boats suitable for fishing, fowling and transportation. Later evidence suggests that the earliest wooden boats were typically of a shell construction, that is a combination of planks joined together with mortise-and-tenon joints and then sewn together to form a keel-less hull.15 It is possible that some of the earliest Neolithic boats were owned communally, with each plank being held by a member of the village when not in use.16 Although there are a few simple models of boats dating to the Neolithic period, it is with the rise of chiefdoms during the Egyptian Predynastic period (3700 to 3050 BCE) that there is evidence of widespread use of boats.
The Egyptian Predynastic period is characterised by numerous boat depictions, including what appears to be a recurring maritime theme on rock art and decorated pottery of that period.17 There are three types of boat depiction during the Egyptian Predynastic period: the papyrus boat, the ceremonial boat and the war-canoe.18
Papyrus boats were still being built in Africa until recent times, in Lake Tana and Chad, and their method of construction provides insight into their Ancient Egyptian equivalents. Egyptian papyrus boats were constructed using dried papyrus plants (each up to 5m high and 15cm thick at the base) bound together to form bundles, which were then tied together to form the desired boat shape. The narrow ends would be raised and tied back to form an upright bow and stern. While single papyrus bundles were used to fish or cross the Nile, quite complex papyrus boats were also constructed by binding multiple large papyrus bundles and could be up to 15m long and 3m wide.19
The ceremonial boats were most likely developed from the larger papyrus boats with upturned ends, used for chiefly ceremonies and other ritual purposes. By the Egyptian Predynastic period they had grown in size and hence a stronger wooden construction was required, although they retained the basic shape of the original papyrus boat with the raised bow and stern. Pharaonic models of divine barks and funerary barks clearly show that the raised bow and stern form was retained.
War-canoes were most important from the viewpoint of the origin of naval forces and ancient sea power. The Neolithic wooden boats grew in size during the Predynastic period to accommodate larger crews. The resulting long thin boats developed into war-canoes with two rows of paddlers, papyrus shelters, a steering oar, a standard and typically a branch on the bow. They were constructed from two wooden side lengths and a wooden bottom length made from thin planks sewn together. Such war-canoes varied in length from approximately 15m for 20 oarsmen (small war-canoe), 27m for 52 oarsmen (large war-canoe), and 38m for 80 oarsmen (maximum crew size).20 It is also possible that sails were used during most of the Predynastic period, as diamond shaped representations with ‘masts’ have of ten been interpreted as temporary sails. The earliest depiction of a sail on a boat can be dated to the end of the Predynastic period, about 3050 BCE.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
E G Y P T I A N M A R I N E R S
A number of nobles’ titles are clearly of a maritime nature, especially those using one or more hieroglyphs with a nautical origin. Some of the earliest titles from the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdoms are ‘commander of ships’, ‘ship’s captain’, ‘captain of sailors’, ‘commander of sailors’ and ‘scribe of the marine’.50 During the New Kingdom new titles appear, in addition to some of the earlier ones, ‘fleet captain’, ‘captain of the ships of the king’, ‘captain of galleys’, ‘ship’s captain’, ‘captains of marines’ (literally ‘captain of the ship archers’), ‘officer of the ships’, ‘officer of marines’, ‘standard-bearer of the ship’, ‘standard-bearer of the marines’, ‘commander of the rowers’, ‘chief of the rowers’, ‘ship archers’, and many more. Non-seagoing titles, such as ‘harbour master’ and ‘ship-builder’, were also used.51 The broad extent of the titles used suggests that the Ancient Egyptian maritime forces were commanded by trained and experienced marine professionals. Scholars who believe that Egyptian sea power is frequently overstated, and who prefer to see a Syrian source for East Mediterranean maritime activities, should reflect upon the complexity and sophistication of the Egyptian Bronze Age forces in comparison with their non-territorial state maritime neighbours.
For the New Kingdom period it is possible to reconstruct the organisation of the Egyptian maritime forces.52 The sailors, uau, were under the leadership of a petty officer, perhaps either the kherep-khenyt ‘chief of the rowers’, khery-khenyt ‘commander of the rowers’, or the tay-seryt ‘standard-bearer’. The ‘ship’s captain’, the hery-wesekh but also known by various other Egyptian terms, who was in charge of the crew and probably the ship itself, would have been of a higher status than the sailors. Promotion of ‘ship’s captains’ were most likely to a more prestigious ship. A number of senior officials had higher maritime commands like ‘chief of all the king’s ships’ or ‘chief of the broad ships of the god’s estate’. Were these the admirals of the Ancient Egyptian maritime forces?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
S E A G O I N G S H I P S While travelling boats were ideal for use along the Nile, they were limited in their ability to navigate Egypt’s adjacent seas. Sea voyages put much higher demands upon a vessel’s strength and seaworthiness. However, inter-regional trade did occur during the Egyptian Predynastic period if not before. The presence of Syrian pottery, imported stone tools and metals, and the remains of Lebanese cedar confirm the existence of maritime trade links between Egyptian and Syrian communities well before the formation of the Egyptian state around 3050 BCE.85 However, the earliest depictions of seagoing ships that provide information on Ancient Egyptian ship technologies are dated to the beginning of the 5th Dynasty during the Old Kingdom, c. 2500 BCE.
Fragmentary reliefs from King Sahura’s Temple depict a fleet of seagoing ships returning from an expedition, while the number of Syrians onboard suggests the ships had sailed the Mediterranean to Byblos or some other destination in Syria.86 Sahura’s ships were over 17.5m long, 4m wide, with a draught of approximately 1m and an average plank thickness of 10cm.87 The ships had either 14 or 16 oars for propulsion, six steering oars, a bipod mast for a trapezoid sail and an anchor. There were at least four ships in the fleet and each ship was crewed by approximately 20 people made up of Egyptians, Syrians and perhaps other maritime peoples.88
... Sahura’s seagoing boats reveal the high level of sophistication of early Egyptian ship construction techniques.
Old Kingdom records reveal that the earliest seagoing ships were referred to as ‘Byblos ships’. It is possible that the technical modifications were incorporated into the standard design of the Egyptian river vessels after visiting Byblos and learning their techniques, but it was equally as likely that the Egyptians modified their ships themselves especially for the Byblos run. The records show that Byblos ships were also used for travel in the Red Sea.91 As maritime communications between Egypt and Byblos had already been strong for some time before the evidence of the seagoing ship, it is most likely that the modifications were a combination of many smaller initiatives adopted by mariners from both regions.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
See Appendix 1 for an extensive chart of more than 2600 years of AE maritime operations.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
The earliest evidence for the use of boats in Ancient Egypt is circumstantial. Fish bones found at the campsites of prehistoric hunter/gatherers include larger deep-water fish that can only be caught by deep-water fishing in some form of boat.14 The earliest boats were rafts made from papyrus reeds, similar to those depicted in later tomb scenes depicting fishing and fowling. Temporary papyrus boats enabled hunter/gatherer groups to travel across and along the river between seasonal camp sites. Egyptian mythology often refers to the use of papyrus boats by the gods, during the ‘time of the gods’ that is before the formation of the Egyptian state. Papyrus boats continued to be used in Pharaonic times for fishing and fowling along the river, but they also retained their religious symbolism as the craft used by the forces of order who entered the wetlands to defeat the forces of chaos.
As the Egyptians adopted Neolithic lifeways (approximately 5500 BCE), including the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry, they continued their reliance on boats to utilise the resources of the Nile. It is likely that wooden boats were first developed at this time, with sedentary villagers investing greater effort to construct more permanent boats suitable for fishing, fowling and transportation. Later evidence suggests that the earliest wooden boats were typically of a shell construction, that is a combination of planks joined together with mortise-and-tenon joints and then sewn together to form a keel-less hull.15 It is possible that some of the earliest Neolithic boats were owned communally, with each plank being held by a member of the village when not in use.16 Although there are a few simple models of boats dating to the Neolithic period, it is with the rise of chiefdoms during the Egyptian Predynastic period (3700 to 3050 BCE) that there is evidence of widespread use of boats.
The Egyptian Predynastic period is characterised by numerous boat depictions, including what appears to be a recurring maritime theme on rock art and decorated pottery of that period.17 There are three types of boat depiction during the Egyptian Predynastic period: the papyrus boat, the ceremonial boat and the war-canoe.18
Papyrus boats were still being built in Africa until recent times, in Lake Tana and Chad, and their method of construction provides insight into their Ancient Egyptian equivalents. Egyptian papyrus boats were constructed using dried papyrus plants (each up to 5m high and 15cm thick at the base) bound together to form bundles, which were then tied together to form the desired boat shape. The narrow ends would be raised and tied back to form an upright bow and stern. While single papyrus bundles were used to fish or cross the Nile, quite complex papyrus boats were also constructed by binding multiple large papyrus bundles and could be up to 15m long and 3m wide.19
The ceremonial boats were most likely developed from the larger papyrus boats with upturned ends, used for chiefly ceremonies and other ritual purposes. By the Egyptian Predynastic period they had grown in size and hence a stronger wooden construction was required, although they retained the basic shape of the original papyrus boat with the raised bow and stern. Pharaonic models of divine barks and funerary barks clearly show that the raised bow and stern form was retained.
War-canoes were most important from the viewpoint of the origin of naval forces and ancient sea power. The Neolithic wooden boats grew in size during the Predynastic period to accommodate larger crews. The resulting long thin boats developed into war-canoes with two rows of paddlers, papyrus shelters, a steering oar, a standard and typically a branch on the bow. They were constructed from two wooden side lengths and a wooden bottom length made from thin planks sewn together. Such war-canoes varied in length from approximately 15m for 20 oarsmen (small war-canoe), 27m for 52 oarsmen (large war-canoe), and 38m for 80 oarsmen (maximum crew size).20 It is also possible that sails were used during most of the Predynastic period, as diamond shaped representations with ‘masts’ have of ten been interpreted as temporary sails. The earliest depiction of a sail on a boat can be dated to the end of the Predynastic period, about 3050 BCE.
Great reference. SOme of the war canoes recorded deeper into the continent are as big as, or exceed the Egyptian example mentioned above. (African Military Systems- wiki).
Some canoes were 80 feet in length, carrying 100 men or more. Documents from 1506 for example, refer to war-canoes on the Sierra Leone river, carrying 120 men. Others refer to Guinea coast peoples using canoes of varying sizes- some 70 feet in length, 7-8 ft broad, with sharp pointed ends, rowing benches on the side, and quarter decks or focastles build of reeds, and miscellaneous facilities such as cooking hearths, and storage spaces for crew sleeping mats. [85] The warriors in some of these accounts were armed with spears, shields and arrows, and were expected to row as well. Each rower kept a bundle of throwing javelins and his shield next to him to repel enemy canoes.
Nor were these simply tribal hordes sallying forth on dugouts, but systematically organized units for battle and logistics. In some empires, maritime assets were systematically organized into military and civil spheres.
"In war, the canoe performed an important logistics function. The empires of Mali and Songhay for example used canoes to move troops, horses and material quickly to many parts of the realm, as well as for trade and general transport. In Songhay, a Chief of the Waters oversaw all civil matters related to water transport, and a Chief of Canoes supervised naval operations. Big war canoes in this region drew a clear distinction between rowers, (usually 18 to 20) and marine troops (some 70-80 warriors). The boats were equipped with all the necessary provisions and supplies for their mission."
Historical Great Lakes naval clash between 2 East African kingdoms
On the coasts of course, various other vessels and peoples engaged in trade etc from the Red Sea, to the Indian Ocean.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: See Appendix 1 @
See Appendix 1 for an extensive chart of more than 2600 years of AE maritime operations.
Good find this article. The author has a section in there on the "Western way" and the argument that Western 'freedom' is linked with sea power. But the author questions it somewhat- noting that the imperialist regimes of Europe also used sea power to maintain their hegemony, not always as a means of generating "freedom or the so-called Western values of liberalism, democracy and capitalism."
Sea Power and the Opening of the Western Mind Many of today’s naval historians, brought up within a Western academic tradition, have seen a link between the liberal democratic and capitalist traditions and the rise of sea power. One widely renowned scholar has even suggested that maritime supremacy was responsible for the development of today’s Western beliefs and systems of government, ‘the opening of the Western mind' and that the distinguishing mark of maritime power is freedom.
"Both trade and consultative government require the widest dissemination of information and free expression of opinion; thus the basic freedoms of trade spread through all areas of life, tending to break down social hierarchies and the grip of received ideas, creating more open, mobile and enterprising cultures. Liberty has always been the pride and rallying cry of powers enjoying maritime supremacy."35
Such thinking may be traced back to the seminal works in naval strategy written by Alfred T. Mahan and Julian S. Corbett before the outbreak of World War I; at a time when European maritime empires had spread across the globe.36 Using the British Empire and Royal Navy as examples, these early naval strategists emphasised the importance of commercial trade and sea communications toward achieving maritime supremacy. Both however, contained underlying assumptions that Western liberal democratic forms of government and free enterprise capitalist economies were both prerequisites for becoming and remaining a global sea power. Other scholars have emphasised the superiority of ‘independent supreme commanders, innovative soldiers and a sovereign legislature’, over ‘rigid hierarchy and complete submission of the individual’.37 The supposed superiority of the ‘Western way of war’ is more apparent than real.38
The advantage of using evidence of ancient history and archaeology is that it can extend our comparative telescope over thousands of years instead of hundreds of years. Over the previous pages it has become clear that the rise of Egypt was a very long process, undertaken over thousands of years, characterised by increasing political power, social complexity, economic organisation and trade, as well as increasingly complex religious beliefs and other ideological factors. It is possible that increased naval power did help the state formation process along the path towards an integrated Egyptian territorial state. But what of the so-called Western institutions? Where are the liberal democratic and capitalist traditions in Ancient Egypt?
Ancient Egyptian society was a formidable kingdom with a king exercising the power of life and death over his subjects, and where a centralised bureaucracy controlled all trading, economic and religious activities. In such a society there was little room for liberal democratic and capitalist ideologies. However, Ancient Egyptian society was not static. During the height of the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms, the royal power was strongest; but during the three intermediate periods, actual royal power was weak and there were effectively many warlords and small states within Egypt rather than a unified Egyptian state. The actual extent of Egyptian sea power also fluctuated in association with Egyptian royal power, and it will be possible to see how the characteristics of actual Egyptian maritime operations changed over time when the evidence is examined later in this book.
There is a noticeable trend in the rise of Ancient Egyptian sea power. The earliest growth of Egyptian sea power occured during a period of relatively high individual freedom and coincided with great advances in the arts, crafts, technology, language and cultural identity. But Egyptian sea power remained quite strong after the formation of the Egyptian state, even when the society was strongly centralised, bureaucratic and authoritarian. If the rise of early modern European maritime states and their Western liberal democratic and capitalist traditions are reconsidered, it is possible to see a parallel development.40 The freedoms cherished by the early European mercantile communities that precipitated the rise of global maritime empires gradually gave way to more centralised maritime states, which used maritime and naval forces to generate and maintain worldwide empires.41 Modern Western maritime states maintain powerful forces that have the ability to exercise sea power across the globe, under centralised and authoritarian command. Western sea powers – those nations with strong maritime traditions – do not automatically generate freedom or the so-called Western values of liberalism, democracy and capitalism. Rather, all societies, should consciously safeguard the values that they most cherish.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
alTakruri
"Change?"
Well you need to change your deodorant, because you smell like rotten bunyons.
Did you get that smell from your people in the Sahel?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Great reference. Some of the war canoes recorded deeper into the continent are as big as, or exceed the Egyptian example mentioned above. (African Military Systems- wiki).
Some canoes were 80 feet in length, carrying 100 men or more. Documents from 1506 for example, refer to war-canoes on the Sierra Leone river, carrying 120 men. Others refer to Guinea coast peoples using canoes of varying sizes- some 70 feet in length, 7-8 ft broad, with sharp pointed ends, rowing benches on the side, and quarter decks or focastles build of reeds, and miscellaneous facilities such as cooking hearths, and storage spaces for crew sleeping mats. [85] The warriors in some of these accounts were armed with spears, shields and arrows, and were expected to row as well. Each rower kept a bundle of throwing javelins and his shield next to him to repel enemy canoes.
Nor were these simply tribal hordes sallying forth on dugouts, but systematically organized units for battle and logistics. In some empires, maritime assets were systematically organized into military and civil spheres.
"In war, the canoe performed an important logistics function. The empires of Mali and Songhay for example used canoes to move troops, horses and material quickly to many parts of the realm, as well as for trade and general transport. In Songhay, a Chief of the Waters oversaw all civil matters related to water transport, and a Chief of Canoes supervised naval operations. Big war canoes in this region drew a clear distinction between rowers, (usually 18 to 20) and marine troops (some 70-80 warriors). The boats were equipped with all the necessary provisions and supplies for their mission."
Historical Great Lakes naval clash between 2 East African kingdoms
On the coasts of course, various other vessels and peoples engaged in trade etc from the Red Sea, to the Indian Ocean.
Excellent snippet about the naval capablities of other Africans further south, Zaharan! It's info like this you don't hear much about.
Getting back to the Egyptians, I find it more than coincidence that the Israelite Book of Nations lists a couple of the earliest sea-faring nations to be of Egyptian origin and that ancient Greek stories such as the Argive legends say the Egyptians were the first to build and sail ships.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
A little something on West African riverain war canoes and sea power -
quote:
... African armies became aware of the new dangers, and Portuguese ships began to meet their match. For example, in 1446, two years later, a ship commanded by Nuno Tristao attempted to land in the Senegal region. It was attacked by African fighters in canoes, and the crew of the ship was wiped out. And in 1447, a Danish raider commanding a Portuguese ship was killed, along with most of his crew, when local African boats attacked.
Although African vessels -- mostly canoes -- were not designed for high-seas navigation, they were fully capable of protecting the coast, even in the 15th century. As a result, in 1456, the king of Portugal dispatched his ambassador, Diogo Gomes, to negotiate treaties of peace and trade with the African rulers along the coast. From that point on, and for 400 years, the African slave trade was conducted as a matter of international commerce among equals.
- sea power made naval commanders elite because of the connection between merchants, kings, and colonialism.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Great reference. SOme of the war canoes recorded deeper into the continent are as big as, or exceed the Egyptian example mentioned above. (African Military Systems- wiki).
Some canoes were 80 feet in length, carrying 100 men or more. Documents from 1506 for example, refer to war-canoes on the Sierra Leone river, carrying 120 men. Others refer to Guinea coast peoples using canoes of varying sizes- some 70 feet in length, 7-8 ft broad, with sharp pointed ends, rowing benches on the side, and quarter decks or focastles build of reeds, and miscellaneous facilities such as cooking hearths, and storage spaces for crew sleeping mats. [85] The warriors in some of these accounts were armed with spears, shields and arrows, and were expected to row as well. Each rower kept a bundle of throwing javelins and his shield next to him to repel enemy canoes.
Nor were these simply tribal hordes sallying forth on dugouts, but systematically organized units for battle and logistics. In some empires, maritime assets were systematically organized into military and civil spheres.
"In war, the canoe performed an important logistics function. The empires of Mali and Songhay for example used canoes to move troops, horses and material quickly to many parts of the realm, as well as for trade and general transport. In Songhay, a Chief of the Waters oversaw all civil matters related to water transport, and a Chief of Canoes supervised naval operations. Big war canoes in this region drew a clear distinction between rowers, (usually 18 to 20) and marine troops (some 70-80 warriors). The boats were equipped with all the necessary provisions and supplies for their mission."
Historical Great Lakes naval clash between 2 East African kingdoms
On the coasts of course, various other vessels and peoples engaged in trade etc from the Red Sea, to the Indian Ocean.
Thor Heyerdahl's Ra 1,built by African boatmen from Lake Chad,along the pattern of the ancient Egyptians. It left North Africa in 1969 and sailed as far as Barbados.The rudder broke early on the Ra,proving that an ancient drift journey in such a boat using Africa to America current was feasible.
The reason they ran into trouble was because Heyerdahl removed a line that ran from the curved tip of the ship to the afterdeck as is seen on Kemitic model.
Now you have to remember that this was not the most sophisticated boat the Kemites had in it's arsinal,The Cheop's boat was way more advanced
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
WHEN KEMET RULED THE WAVES Black Spark WHITE FIRE Modified by Ackee
How did Kemet manage to project power across the Mediterraean Sea? During the 18th and 19th Dynasties,Kemet's enemy,the powerful Hittite Empire,was firmly incontrol of Asia Minor.The days when a Sesostris could march a land army into Europe had long gone. And in any case ,neither Crete nor the other Isle In the midst of the Great Green Sea were ever vulnerable to attack by land.
Clearly,the only way Kemet could have "trussed" the Haunebu and "struck" the Islanders(as Thutmose 3rd claimed to have done)or put them "in fear"(as Ramesses 2nd supposedly did)would have been to threaten the Aegean with a powerful navy.
The conquering pharaoh Thutmose 3rd made effective use of naval power in his invasion of Syria-Palestine. Thutmose's first move when he marched into the region was to size the harbors and equip them for heavy traffic.
"Every port town was supplied with every good thing..."says an incription of the time,"with ships of cedar loaded with columns and beams as well as timber.
Thutmose immediately put these harbors to work. In at least 13-teen successive campaigns against Syria-Palestine, Thutmose brought in his armies by sea-thus eliminating the need for a long overland march.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
5th dynasty boats from Saqqarah, pretty much the prototype for most modern sailing craft:
These are very similar to those of Sahure posted earlier.
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
@ Doug M or others,do you know if anyone did a test of the Khufu boat to see how it could perform on open ocean? it has a high bow,but how streamline was it in comparision to lets say a Viking boat. Plus the oars seems oddly placed.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
![[Smile]](http://touregypt.net/featurestories/navy7.jpg)
with brave warriros ![[Wink]](http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/937/50175611.JPG)
armed to the teeth. They were as ready for battle as lions roaring on the mountains."( Keller (1956), p. 177.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Very good finds, Doug.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
