The Sinai junction has at times been the subject of geopolitical gymnastics in anthropology, wherein any archaeological findings is given an non-African interpretation. In fact, many anthropological findings have exemplified just how this region is an extension of the Nile Valley, and hence, Africa since antiquity, as it is today. Take for instance the 'Proto-Sinaitic' script, which had been uncovered in Sinai; similar examples of the type were initially found further east, in the Levant, prompting explanations that propose the concept's spread from the Sinai into Levant. Yet even then, despite claims of the scripts located in both regions being considered to be essentially of the same type, this had not stopped references to the Levantine example of the type as "Proto-Canaanite". Perhaps more subtle, is the treatment of Sinai as an agent that can be used to demarcate what is no longer African, or Nile Valley for that matter, with developments within the Sinai region itself usually discussed from a non-African context. Look at the term "Proto-Sinaitic" itself; it is as though that region isn't recognized as part of Egypt, when indeed, it is every bit geopolitically a part of Egypt today, as it was in antiquity. If nothing else shows this, then please consider the following...
Cairo, July 22: Egypt announced on Sunday the discovery of the largest-ever military city from the Pharaonic period on the edge of the Sinai desert, part of the forts that stretched to the Gaza border.
The three forts are part of a string of 11 castles that made up the Horus military road that went from Suez all the way to the city of Rafah on the Egyptian-Palestinia border and dates to the 18th and 19th dynasties (1560-1081 BC)," said antiquities supreme Za-hi Hawwas.
Teams have been digging in the area for a decade, but the Egyptian discovery of the massive Fort Tharo and the discovery of two other fortresses confirmed the existence of the Horus fortifications described in ancient texts...
One of the biggest ancient Egyptian military fortresses dating back to about 3,500 years ago has been discovered in north Sinai, an Egyptian antiquities official said on Sunday.
The fort was believed to be built at the time of King Thutmos III (1504 BC-1452 BC), Mohamed Adel Maqsoud, head of the Higher Antiquities Council team that made the discovery, was quoted by the Egyptian MENA news agency as saying.
The fort was unearthed on the ancient Horus military road between Egypt and the Palestinian territory, some 3 km off the Suez Canal in the area of Qantara Sharq, he said.
Maqsoud said that the newly discovered fort remains indicated the once gigantic military fort was 500-meter long and 250-meter wide, built with 13-meter-wide brick walls.
It also has a 12-meter-wide southern entrance with two-meter- high walls, he added.
Egyptian armies in the era of the pharaonic modern state took the military fort, which was the eastern front of the ancient Egyptian town of Tharo, as the starting point to protect the country's eastern gateway, according to Maqsoud.
Courtesy of deccan.com and Xinhua
As the present author has noted elsewhere before, Egyptians had fortresses both on the northern and southern borders to control movements into the country. Naturally, this should tell us that 'foreigners' didn't come in droves as they pleased without the Egyptian authorization, as many laypersons are predisposed to believing, given all the hype and portrayal of ancient Egyptians as some sort of mystical "Mediterranean" types. Listening to the way some people frame history, showing just how much thought they put into their claims, one gets away with the idea that somehow the north was sort of a no-man's land, while the southern border was heavily guarded to restrict movement of people from further south. Some others make it seem like both the southern and northern ends of the country had a "no-man's land" type of situation, allowing unfettered flow of people from the northern and southern neighboring regions, thereby turning Egypt into what they call a 'melting pot'. Undoubtedly, these fortresses were there to primarily protect Dynastic Egypt from potential rivals mainly to its east and its south, and also oversee 'controlled' movement of people in and out of the country. This would have meant gradual and controlled inflow of migrants into the region over time, barring military incursions or attempts at military incursion; these militarized fortresses served a role no different than militarized borders of many nations today.
There is a perception in some quarters that Egypt's southern neighbors may not have been a potent of threat to ancient Egyptians as their eastern neighbors were; the wisdom here, is that when the Kushitic complex was not paying tribute to the Egyptian state under Egyptian control, it was generally an ally. In geo-politics strange things can happen, where allies can also be rivals suspicious of one another; "strange bedfellows" comes to mind as a descriptive word. Is there any reason to assume that Kushites weren't considered as potent a threat to the Egyptian state as any other outside the state's immediate borders? Kushites were not only a rival during the Middle Kingdom in particular, but even during the Roman occupation. The Romans experienced first hand just how much of a pain the Kushites could be. Heck, they even ruled the Nation in the 25th dynasty, and nearly came close to doing so even earlier, according an Egyptian inscription in a richly decorated tomb at El Kab, near Thebes, in Upper Egypt, dating to about the same time as the date of the above mentioned military fortress on the Sinai region ca. 3,500 years [see: Tomb reveals Ancient Egypt's humiliating secret, by Dalya Alberge, 2005] . So apparently, the Egyptian knew the Kushites better than to entertain the idea that they posed little potential threat, and so, made no qualms about building militarized fortresses to their southern border as well. That said, Kushites were also most counted on in helping restore native consolidation of power in Dynastic Egypt, especially under Kushitic rule in the 25th Dynasty. It appears that Kushite mercenaries were even used in the Levant to help "Israelites" fight Assyrians ca. 8th century BC [see: The Rescue of Jerusalem: The Alliance Between Hebrews and Africans in 701 B.C., by Henry T. Aubin (April 1, 2003)].
Going back to that issue of "Proto-Sinaitic" script, it apparently served as another sign of the region being essentially an extension of the Nile Valley, aside from its prehistoric role as a corridor for the movement of people from [Mushabians or ancestors of Natufians as an example] and into the region, when the elements of the script where found deep in the Nile Valley, in a tomb [belonging to a King Scorpion] located in Abydos, dating back to ca. 3400 BC or so, earlier than the examples found in the Sinai region itself. The importance of the script of course, particularly to cultures outside of Africa, is that it is parent to a great deal of scripts that are used to communicate both Afrasan (Afro-Asiatic) and Indo-European languages [like almost all the languages of western Europe]. Certain themes of this posting will be revisited in future postings here.
More great info. I always heard about the fortress facing the Nubian border but almost nothing about Sinai. I think the data you post challenges conventional wisdom and forces reexamination of boilerplate assumptions. One website for example asserts:
ReplyDeleteHumankind's presence in Sinai dates back eight thousand years, when early bronze age settlers arrived in search of valuable metals. They developed the peninsula's copper and turquoise mines, which later drew the attention of Egypt's earliest pharaohs. By 3000 BC Egypt had asserted its control over the region. For the next three millenia, Sinai remained sparsely inhabited, serving primarily as a mining region and as a military route between Egypt and the great civilizations of the Fertile Crescent.
This may or may not be true. I wonder who these early Bronze Age settlers were. No details were given. The assumption is of an empty land awaiting "settlement." But could not Sinai have had a fertile phase with indigenous peoples in place, tapping available resources like those turquoise mines? And could not these indigenes, like the Nautfians (sic) have genetic or skeletal links with peoples of northeast/east Africa?
MS said:
As I've noted elsewhere before, Egyptians had fortresses both on the northern and southern borders to control movements into the country. Naturally, this should tell us that 'foreigners' didn't come in droves as they pleased without the Egyptian authorization, as many laypersons are predisposed to believing, given all the hype and portrayal of ancient Egyptians as some sort of mystical "Mediterranean" types. Listening to the way some people frame history, showing just how much thought they put into their claims, one gets away with the idea that somehow the north was sort of a no-man's land, while the southern border was heavily guarded to restrict movement of people from further south.
That's the impression I get from reading numerous general histories. The north is supposed to be wide open while grim fortresses guard against "foreign" Africans. But would'nt the population in Upper Egypt be already demonstrably "African" given the genetic and skeletal links demonstrated by Brace, Keita, Krings, et al to Nubians, Somalians, Ethiopians etc, plus the Sudan?
MS said:
Some others make it seem like both the southern and northern ends of the country had a "no-man's land" type of situation, allowing unfettered flow of people from the northern and southern neighboring regions, thereby turning Egypt into what they call a 'melting pot'. Undoubtedly, these fortresses were there to primarily protect Dynastic Egypt from potential rivals mainly to its east and its south, and also oversee 'controlled' movement of people in and out of the country. This would have meant gradual and controlled inflow of migrants into the region over time, barring military incursions or attempts at military incursion; these militarized fortresses served a role no different than militarized borders of many nations today.
The weight of data supports this view. In some places the "foreigness" of Nubia is played up, as if they were somehow an alien species to the Nile Valley or to Egypt. But even Frank Yurco says that of all peoples, the Nubians were ethnically the closest to the Egyptians, and since partsof Nubia were incorporated into Egyptian provinces exactly who "foreign" are they? Some attmept to make such a case based on skin color, portraying "how the Egyptians saw themselves" ie. portraiture of Egyptians, Nubians, Asiatics side by side. But dark skin is a routine variant in Egypt, as attested to even today after centuriesof Arab settlement adnintermingling. The notion that black skin ="foreign" is thus bogus.
MS said:
There is a perception in some quarters that Egypt's southern neighbors may not have been a potent of threat to ancient Egyptians as their eastern neighbors were; the wisdom here, is that when the Kushitic complex was not paying tribute to the Egyptian state under Egyptian control, it was generally an ally.. Is there any reason to assume that Kushites weren't considered as potent a threat to the Egyptian state as any other outside the state's immediate borders? Kushites were not only a rival during the Middle Kingdom in particular, but even during the Roman occupation. The Romans experienced first hand just how much of a pain the Kushites could be. Heck, they even ruled the Nation in the 25th dynasty, and nearly came close to doing so even earlier, according an Egyptian inscription in a richly decorated tomb at El Kab, near Thebes, in Upper Egypt, dating to about the same time as the date of the above mentioned military fortress on the Sinai region ca. 3,500 years [see: Tomb reveals Ancient Egypt's humiliating secret, by Dalya Alberge, 2005] . So apparently, the Egyptian knew the Kushites better than to entertain the idea that they posed little potential threat, and so, made no qualms about building militarized fortresses to their southern border as well.
Outstanding links that I definitely need to check out. Never heard of the earlier Kushite threat. National Geog ran an article called "The Black Pharaohs of Egypt" which mentions little about it, and academic books such as Donald Redford's "From Slave to Pharoah: The Black Experience in Egypt" offers scant mention, leaving behind the impression that "the black experience" in Egypt starts with "slavery"- ie.e the early Egyptian forays into Nubia. Amazingly, the negroes eventually "move on up" to be Pharoah. This seems typical of the "spin" you speak of. Can anyone really speak of the "black experience" in Egypt without starting with the "tropical" and other African types that were there from the pre-dynastic and early dynasties, through the later dynastic periods? Redford airbrushes them out of his narrative as well. They are portrayed as appearing first as victims of conquest.
But can even the early forays into Nubia, be cast in "racial" terms as some Eurocentrics would have it? If a black skinned Egyptian general drives a few score miles south of some position in Upper Egypt and fights or conquers some other black skins during his movement is that "racial war"? No wonder **Keita ironically wonders why Europeans do not consider conflict between neighboring England and France as "racial war" but somehow see conflict between Egypt and its ethnically closest neighbor as something "different." This is the same hypocritical double standard shown time and time in the European academy.(**Aaron Kamugisha, "Finally in Africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko," (Race & Class, Vol. 45, No. 1, 31-60 (2003)- http://wysinger.homestead.com/finally.html"
Some online also seize upon or play up assorted propagandist statements the Egyptians make about Nubia, i.e. "slaying the Nubian troglodytes" etc etc. This appears in Redford's book for example. But they are careful not to mention what was happening "up north" against so-called Asiatics where the inscriptions describe ""slaying of Asiatic trodlodytes" and "wretched Asiatics". Strangely, few seem to be rounding up such statements and presenting them as "the white experience" in Ancient Egypt. Also curious, Asiatic captives appear early in Egyptian history with Narmer's inscriptions boasting of expeditions into Palestine and himself as "smiter of Asiatics". Few however, seem to be tallying this up into a "white experience" in Ancient Egypt though. That seems to be reserved for mysterious "Mediterraneans" or "Eastern Hamites" who flit across the landscape bringing civilization to the natives.
MS said:
That said, Kushites were also most counted on in helping restore native consolidation of power in Dynastic Egypt, especially under Kushitic rule in the 25th Dynasty. It appears that Kushite mercenaries were even used in the Levant to help "Israelites" fight Assyrians ca. 8th century BC [see: The Rescue of Jerusalem: The Alliance Between Hebrews and Africans in 701 B.C., by Henry T. Aubin (April 1, 2003)].
Another ref I have not heard of that I need to check out. I see the reviewon Amazon mentions king Hezekiah, most interesting. As to that threat by Kush, it would seem that the Kushites may have themselves had a go into Sinai,or at least the adjoining regions at other times.
According to the Biblical narrative in 2 Chronicles 14:8-13, an Ethiopian army under one Zerah came against Asa king of Judah with 300 chariots and 1 million men. I doubt all of these troops took the field at the same time- they may have been Zerah's potential "paper" or "proposed" strength, but nevertheless the host of the Ethiopian captain appears impressive. If the Cushites could mobilize these numbers or even something approaching them, and move them into Israel to do battle, I wonder about claims of the "low threat" represented by Kushite arms. Assuming this foray by the Ethiopian general happened, I also wonder if they came up thru Sinai, or looped around following the Saudi coastline for an attack from that direction. Food for thought.
anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteOne website for example asserts:
Humankind's presence in Sinai dates back eight thousand years, when early bronze age settlers arrived in search of valuable metals. They developed the peninsula's copper and turquoise mines, which later drew the attention of Egypt's earliest pharaohs. By 3000 BC Egypt had asserted its control over the region. For the next three millenia, Sinai remained sparsely inhabited, serving primarily as a mining region and as a military route between Egypt and the great civilizations of the Fertile Crescent.
This may or may not be true. I wonder who these early Bronze Age settlers were. No details were given. The assumption is of an empty land awaiting "settlement." But could not Sinai have had a fertile phase with indigenous peoples in place, tapping available resources like those turquoise mines? And could not these indigenes, like the Nautfians (sic) have genetic or skeletal links with peoples of northeast/east Africa?
The bit about a military post in the Sinai is certainly true, as it has been backed by archaeology, as I have pointed out. As for the inhabitants of Sinai in antiquity, however sparse it may or may not have been, it most certainly at the least, provided refuge to groups which were likely nomadic/semi-nomadic in their lifestyle, going back and forth into the Nile Valley proper and the Levant; the Sinai has proven to be a corridor for movement of people back and forth the Nile Valley and the Levant. Northeast African micro-chip patterns and Neolithic tools have been noted in the Sinai and the Levant [e.g. See Bar Yosef below], not to mention mention the fact that bio-anthropological and genetic data corroborate the movement of people through the Sinai corridor; it is therefore hard to imagine inhabitants of Sinai being biologically unrelated to inhabitants of Nile Valley proper.
Pleistocene connections between Africa and SouthWest Asia: an archaeological perspective.
By Dr. Ofer Bar-Yosef, 1987;
The African Archaeological Review;
Chapter 5, pg 29-38.
“The Mushabians moved into the Sinai from the Nile Delta, bringing North African lithic chipping techniques.”
“Thus the population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system.”
There are many other archaeological indicators like this, including the "proto-Sinaitic" script -- found deep in the Nile Valley, Abydos -- mentioned in the post, and the aforementioned military fortress, that show movement of people from deep in the Nile Valley into Sinai at different periods of time.
anonymous writes:
But even Frank Yurco says that of all peoples, the Nubians were ethnically the closest to the Egyptians, and since parts of Nubia were incorporated into Egyptian provinces exactly who "foreign" are they?
Never in doubt, and although plenty of predynastic and dynastic evidence show this Egypt-"Nubian" connection, here is one more example of such a connection:
Refitting individual chaînes opératoires
The work of the Belgian Middle Egypt Prehistoric Project (Vermeersch 2002) in the Lower Nile Valley, has revealed the existence of chert extraction sites, many of which were used in Middle Palaeolithic times. Both research programs went a long way in establishing the Lower Nile Valley as the scene of important behavioral events in the early Upper Pleistocene and put to rest the former view of the Lower Nile Valley as an isolated, conservative region. Recently, it has become increasingly clear that this northeastern African Middle Palaeolithic, in its earlier phases particularly, shows many similarities with Sub-Saharan lithic industries and, consequently, that the use of the term Middle Stone Age is appropriate.
It is not until well in the Upper Pleistocene, in post-Interglacial times, that **explicitly regional** lithic facies emerge in this part of Africa as a consequence of climatically-driven demographic events (Van Peer 2004).... - Van Peer
anonymous writes:
Some attmept to make such a case based on skin color, portraying "how the Egyptians saw themselves" ie. portraiture of Egyptians, Nubians, Asiatics side by side.
That's because such individuals leave out artwork which do depict Egyptians and so-called Nubians in the same skin shades; it is rather easy to cherry pick artwork. Such individuals also seem inclined to never give thought to the changing nature of artistic conventions, which not only may or may not sport subtle and not-so-subtle variations from one artist to another, but also evolve from a spatial standpoint, with common artistic conventions of one time frame/Dynastic era differing from that of another time frame/Dynastic era.
Earlier I posted this:
ReplyDeleteNever in doubt, and although plenty of predynastic and dynastic evidence show this Egypt-"Nubian" connection, here is one more example of such a connection:
Refitting individual chaînes opératoires
The work of the Belgian Middle Egypt Prehistoric Project (Vermeersch 2002) in the Lower Nile Valley, has revealed the existence of chert extraction sites, many of which were used in Middle Palaeolithic times. Both research programs went a long way in establishing the Lower Nile Valley as the scene of important behavioral events in the early Upper Pleistocene and put to rest the former view of the Lower Nile Valley as an isolated, conservative region. Recently, it has become increasingly clear that this northeastern African Middle Palaeolithic, in its earlier phases particularly, shows many similarities with Sub-Saharan lithic industries and, consequently, that the use of the term Middle Stone Age is appropriate.
It is not until well in the Upper Pleistocene, in post-Interglacial times, that **explicitly regional** lithic facies emerge in this part of Africa as a consequence of climatically-driven demographic events (Van Peer 2004).... - Van Peer
And now, add to that, this piece:
New Evidence for the Expansion of an Upper Pleistocene Population out of East Africa, from the Site of Station One, Northern Sudan
Jeffrey I. Rose - a1
a1 - Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA; jirose@mail.smu.edu.
Abstract
Evidence for a hunter-gatherer range-expansion is indicated by the site of Station One in the northern Sudan, a surface scatter of chipped stone debris systematically collected almost 40 years ago, though not studied until present. Based on technological and typological correlates in East Africa, the predominant use of quartz pebbles for raw material, and the production of small bifacial tools, the site can be classified as Middle Stone Age. While often appearing in East African assemblages, quartz was rarely used in Nubia, where ferrocrete sandstone and Nile pebble were predominantly used by all other Middle Palaeolithic/Middle Stone Age populations. Additionally, façonnage reduction is characteristic of lithic technology in East Africa in the late Middle Stone Age, while Middle Palaeolithic industries in the Nile Valley display only core reduction. It is proposed this assemblage represents a range-expansion of Middle Stone Age hunter-gatherers from East Africa during an Upper Pleistocene pluvial.
(Received March 18 2003)
And now, add to that, this piece:
ReplyDeleteNew Evidence for the Expansion of an Upper Pleistocene Population out of East Africa, from the Site of Station One, Northern Sudan
Jeffrey I. Rose - a1
a1 - Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA; jirose@mail.smu.edu.
Abstract
Evidence for a hunter-gatherer range-expansion is indicated by the site of Station One in the northern Sudan, a surface scatter of chipped stone debris systematically collected almost 40 years ago, though not studied until present. Based on technological and typological correlates in East Africa, the predominant use of quartz pebbles for raw material, and the production of small bifacial tools, the site can be classified as Middle Stone Age. While often appearing in East African assemblages, quartz was rarely used in Nubia, where ferrocrete sandstone and Nile pebble were predominantly used by all other Middle Palaeolithic/Middle Stone Age populations. Additionally, façonnage reduction is characteristic of lithic technology in East Africa in the late Middle Stone Age, while Middle Palaeolithic industries in the Nile Valley display only core reduction. It is proposed this assemblage represents a range-expansion of Middle Stone Age hunter-gatherers from East Africa during an Upper Pleistocene pluvial.
Gasp. That last sentence is a dangerous one for assorted Aryanists/Mediterraneanists to choke on. Expansion from East Africa? Heaven forbid...
Ah well, preponderance of evidence is stacked against them!
ReplyDelete