Showing posts with label Kemet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kemet. Show all posts

Saturday, January 2, 2010

The So-called Tehenu Palette

The palette itself appears to have an alternative name given to it by contemporary researchers, perhaps underlying the uncertainty surrounding the basis on which the palette has been associated with the Tehenu and/or else "Libyans", along with other speculative explanation based on such. For instance, on one website, the following was offered as an explanation:
The Tehenu palette (or Towns palette) in Cairo (C.G. 14238) is named after a sign on its verso: this shows three registers with domestic animals files and a fourth lower one with plants (trees) and the hieroglyph of the throwing stick on an oval (which means 'region', 'place', 'island'), thus a toponym of Libya or Western Delta (THnw, Tjehenw). The recto of the palette is of great importance, showing the feet of some persons and, below the register line, two rows of four and three groups respectively; each group is constituted by an animal grasping the Mer-hoe on the crenellated wall of a town; the name of each town is written within the wall [see my Corpus of Late Predynastic Decorated Palettes]. - Courtesy xoomer.virgilio.it
...that alternative name, as provided above, is "Towns" palette. Given the air of uncertainty around preexisting rationales that associate the palette scenery with "Libyan" or "Tehenu booty", the relative neutral, if not ambiguous, moniker of "Towns palette" is not unreasonable. Coincidentally, the extract reaffirms what the present author had bumped into while researching the question of the actual underlying connections made between the "Tehenu Palette" and socio-ethnic entity known to us by primary Kemetic texts, i.e. prior to the above coming to immediate attention. This has to do with the said hieroglyphic sign of the "throwing stick". Accordingly, the present author put forth the following in a discussion elsewhere:

Managed to come across reference to Alexandre Moret's and Margaret Murray's interpretation of that "throw strick"/stick sign to the right of the plants-i.e. on the side of the "Tjehenu Palette" bearing the animals and plants--as "Thn", and therefore read it as "Tehenu" or "Libyans". But as far as I know, the "stick" is generally an ideogram for something "foreign" or a "foreigner", and not relegated to any one specific ethnicity or locality. On the other hand, Jean Capart put forth the case that the said plants are "Libyan", reportedly from having made comparisons to "a bas-relief depicting Libyan spoils in Sahure's temple".

Indeed, the "throwing stick" alone does not implicate nor is relegated to just one specific foreign socio-ethnic entity or foreign locality, unless, accompanied by other particulars or specificities that point to a specific foreign ethnic entity or locality. There is nothing there about the ovular-looking heiroglyphic sign [in the lowermost register on the "verso" side of the palette] accompanying the "throwing stick" in question either, that supposedly speaks to singular and specific foreign ethnicity or locality, which in the present case, is identified as either "Tehenu" or "Libyan". Therefore, one has to look for a more compelling explanation than the one suggested by either Moret or Murray, and pin it down to a specific ethnic entity and/or state. For instance, one can start by narrowing down the possible territorial confines in which the palette scenery is implicated. As an example, perhaps if there is any indication that the side of the so-called "Tehenu Palette" bearing registers of animals and plants describes a locality, then perhaps the donkey or ass figures therein could suggest that it is on the African continent, especially if one were to put faith in the age estimations given to the palette, the specifics of which we will shortly visit, which would make the domestication and widespread use of donkeys outside of Africa a relatively rare sight at the time in question. Jean Capart, as mentioned above, appears to have taken this latter route of correlating certain "spoils" [which presumably, happened to be made largely up of fauna] implicated in the endeavors of exotic personalities [vis-a-vis the Kemetian], as it relates to their dealings with Kemetic personalities in artistic scenery, with geography. To see how Capart may have made the "Libyan" connection to the so-called Tehenu palette, one might want to examine what is displayed in the Sahure temple wall renditions that he was presumably referring to; to this end, the following images come to mind:

 Click on the image for greater resolution

Indeed, here we see accompanying fauna and flora that are not that different from those seen on the so-called Tehenu palette. Visible are sheep-like figures, cattle and asses/donkeys, which are also featured on the so-called Tehenu palette. The only fauna shown here, not visible on the "Tehenu" palette fragment, is the goat or goat-like figures. Nor are flora featured in the particular rendering at hand; whereas, at the very bottom register of the "verso" side of the "Tehenu" palette, flora are featured. The wall relief above features human personalities just above and below the registers featuring fauna; The "verso" side of the "Tehenu"/"Libyan" palette on the other hand, displays no human figures, to the extent of what is visible there. There are human figures featured on the "recto" side of the palette though, but even these are not sufficiently visible, so as to make a logical statement about possible patterns of attire on not just a single figure, but several involved.

 Click on the image for greater resolution

Another standout, is the personalities accompanying the "spoils" [if these are indeed the spoils Capart was referring to] or else fauna; while they too are partially uncovered, where attire is concerned, the patterns invoked in their attire is markedly distinct from those featured in another palette wherein "Libyans" or else "Tehenu" have been implicated by some observers—the Narmer palette. What significance does the Narmer palette hold here? For one, it is supposed to be the temporally closer item to that of the "Tehenu" palette than the Sahure temple wall relief in question. Thus, if one is to have any faith on claims that "Tehenu" are featured on either the "Tehenu" or Narmer palettes, then it is only fitting to examine any connections between the attires featured on the human figures. For this purpose, the Narmer palette renditions are provided below:

Click on the image for greater resolution

The bearded fellows under captivity, who are supposed to be "Tehenu" or else "Libyans" according to some observers, do not feature the same attire as the figures in the Sahure temple wall relief. If the figures on the Sahure wall mural are considered to be "Tehenu", then taking that into account thereof and making a comparison to the "Libyan" or "Tehenu" figures on the Narmer palette does not immediately make apparent, the prospect of the latter "Libyan" figures of the Narmer palette being "Tehenu" as well, solely based on attire. The strapped-gear around the trunk of the human figures of the wall mural are visibly absent on the bearded-figures featured on the Narmer palette. It can be pointed out that the figures on the Sahure temple wall mural generally comprise of juvenile and feminine personalities, as opposed to adult male personalities. A close inspection of the 'verso' side of the Narmer palette, as shown above, also features what appears to be a juvenile personality to the left hand side of the authoritative figure [generally deemed to be Narmer, in this case], and here too, one cannot help but notice a strapped-gear around the trunk, with the straps crossing one another at the chest level—not unlike the manner in which the "strapped-gears" of the Sahure wall mural "Tehenu" figures feature. This figure though, sports some yet-to-make-out item on the chest area, where the straps are supposed to cross one another; this feature is absent in the Sahure wall mural counterparts. Furthermore, this same figure appears to be wearing a loincloth that is not too deviant from that of the aforementioned head figure (Narmer). This stands in contrast to the juvenile "Tehenu" figures of the Sahure wall mural, whom aside from the said "strapped-gear", wore nothing underneath, i.e. below the waist. On the other hand, the "Tehenu" figures in general, feature some sort of neck gear or ornament, which is visibly absent in the Narmer "juvenile" figure in question. Not to be left out in the midst of these observations, is that this Narmer palette "juvenile" personality does not appear to be an accomplice of the supposed "Libyan" figures, as he doesn't appear to be under any form of suppression as the said "Libyan" figures, nor do they share attire forms.

Visible on at least one of the "Libyan" figures, is a semi-exposing attire below the waist, only featuring a "penis sheath". The adult "Tehenu" figures of the Sahure wall mural also appear to be wearing similar line of clothing, although these are generally accompanied by some rope-like or semi-looped tool, weapon or device on the sides of the figures, which is visibly absent on the Narmer palette figures in question. At the top registers of the Sahure wall mural, there are some characters that might remotely be deemed to be those of male figures, but because of the tearing and wearing, and especially if one is faced with dealing with repros, cannot conclusively be reported as such. However, repro of a "Tehenu" figure, floating around the web, displays an adult male figure featuring attire not too different from the Sahure wall mural personalities:

Click on the image for greater resolution

This male figure above on the other hand, has gear that is visibly distinct from the personalities mentioned on the Narmer palette. Even the head-hair arrangement is distinct from those of the "Libyan" personalities of the Narmer palette. So, if these items are to serve as the parameters by which a connection between the Sahure wall mural figures and those of the "Tehenu" and the Narmer palettes are made, then such connection is not made apparent here. This in of itself doesn't disprove, or prove, that the figures on either the "Tehenu" or "Narmer" palette are of folks associated with territory now identified with Libya, but it does put a question mark on whether the figures of the palettes in question are in fact those of "Tehenu", i.e. if the Sahure wall-murals are determined to be those of "Tehenu". Nor does it get any clearer, when the recto side of the Narmer palette is considered:

Click on the image for greater resolution

Can it therefore be reckoned, that the attire of the Tehenu may have changed through the time frames in which the discussed art renditions belong? It is not impossible, but evidence for such is wanting.

On a passing note, the long-necked feline creatures on the recto side of Narmer palette are hard to ignore. Some observers have dubbed them as "serpopards". Some have interpret  them as supposed "imports" from the so-called "Near East", predicated on the flimsy standpoint that similar creature is featured in Uruk artifact dated to more or less contemporary time frame as the Narmer palette, like the Uruk seal below, reportedly dated to c. 3000 BC:

Click on the image for greater resolution

Notwithstanding such claims, the Nile Valley example is actually dated earlier than the "Near Eastern" examples. Anytime there are some parallel cultural/artistic expressions in the Nile Valley and the so-called Near East, these same characters tend to give priority to the so-called "Near East" as the most likely source, as if to tacitly say that the Nile Valley can never be conceived as the source (it is virtually impossible) and therefore, must always be the recipient of cultural diffusion. Note that the Uruk  serpopards have much longer tails than the Narmer palette rendition, with their tails almost as long as their necks.The mythic creatures themselves may well serve as "guardians" against enemies or adversarial elements, just as that served by other mythic creatures like the Sphinx. Now that the issue of dates has been brought up, we now visit the issue of the dating attributed to the palettes discussed here. On the basis of serekhs and iconography associated with successive designated rulers spanning the predynastic time frame, attempts had been made to place the age of the so-called Tehenu palette amongst several other palettes. For instance, G. Dreyer  [Umm el-Qaab I, Mainz 1998] sought to do this very thing, i.e. reading through a series of signs/serekhs on a single palette, check to see which pharaoh figures' signs, names or serekhs have been implicated and whose has been left out thereof, and extrapolate from there, the likely temporal place of the palette in question in the midst of several other palettes. Going by a website earlier cited above, we are informed how Dreyer and others went about doing this, in reference to the themes of the Coptos Colossi statues:
The colossal limestone statues of Min were found by Petrie in the temple of Koptos in 1894; they had been fashioned with hammering technique (no chiselling) and represented the god standing with erected phallus; only the torso and part of the legs was preserved and the head of one of the statues in Oxford, although almost entirely effaced; some signs in relief were noted on the statues showing animals, plants, shells and standards.

In an article published in 1988 [JARCE 25, 35-60], B. Williams suggested the presence of a fragmentary trace of the name of Narmer on the Cairo statue; this gave an important clue about the long disputed question of the date of the statues (which in the past had ranged from Predynastic to 1st Intermediate Period according to the opinions of different Egyptologists). [For reconstructions of the colossi and temple see this page in the Petrie Museum website: Digital Egypt].

In 1995 Dreyer (loc. cit. above) proposed that the graffiti on the statues were the names of older rulers, and Narmer had been the last one to make his name be carved on those statues; therefore the colossi probably dated well before his reign, down to Naqada IIIa, and the signs carved onto them would be perhaps something similar to a king list. I must notice that the Nar-fish and the Mer-chisel are very fragmentary -only the left end preserved- and, as suggested by Kemp, the upper sign is rather the tail of a bird than that of the Nar cat-fish, thus suggesting a falcon on a perch or on a standard [cf. B.J. Kemp, CAJ 10.2, 2000, 211-242, fig. 10; H. Goedicke, MDAIK 58, 2002, 253].

Basing on the reciprocal placement and superimposition of the signs on the colossi, Dreyer seems to have found a possible sequence of the stages in which the graffiti were incised (cf. table): Animal-head standard, Shell, Elephant, Bull, Stork, Canid, Min-standard, Plant, Lion and Narmer. - Courtesy xoomer.virgilio.it
A similar approach was taken by Dreyer in narrowing down the chronological order of the so-called "Tehenu" palette amongst several other predynastic era palettes. In the case of the "Tehenu" palette, the signs implicated are those that belong to the following figures: Falcon, possibly but not certain—Falcon II, Lion, Double Falcon, and Scorpion II. Other figures or names had been left out from what was available to read on the palette, but from extrapolation, it may be safe to say that the palette belongs to a chronological order that proceeds those of unlisted figures that predate the ones named or implicated, while preceding those unlisted counterparts that are considered to post-date King Scorpion II. Reading on, from the above mentioned website, and in a passing, the author gives us his personal opinion about the chronological placement of the Tehenu palette...
Dreyer has postulated that, given the mentioned late-Dynasty 0 manufacture of the Tehenu palette (which in my opinion is in fact later than the Battlefield and Bull palettes but earlier than the Plover and Narmer palettes, it could never neither celebrate nor narrate the foundation of the towns by those kings : the town of the Heron (Djebawty), probably Buto, which is currently being excavated by T. Von der Way, was founded much earlier than Naqada IIIA. Therefore the action performed by the royal entities on the palette could eventually be the foundation of fortresses in the respective centers (cf. the example from Elephantine), or more probably it was the (symbolic ?) destruction of the centers after their defeat by the Southern Kings; this progressive military expansionism and submission of the Delta by the Thinite sovereigns, which is echoed in the scenes of battle and of their aftermath represented on Naqada III palettes and ivories, was probably a relatively common scenario until the country unification (cf. M. Campagno 2002). As quoted above, and always with the due cautions, it can be supposed that a parallel warfare-pattern should have been followed by the Dynasty 00-0 kings in respect of the Nubian antagonists; perhaps also in the Delta the Maadi-Buto decline hadn't happened (Naqada IIC-D) without some conflict; the EB I Canaan colonization is instead a different matter (although some scholars hypothesized, in the past, massive military interventions of the Egyptians there): the difference between Egypt and Canaan at that time was too large to favour the assumption of any possible competition between them; Egyptians must have found no resistance in their infiltration into those territories, contributing to their evolution towards the EB II Urbanization [cf. the interesting and still valid synthesis 'The relations between Early Bronze I age Canaanites and Upper Egyptians' by Branislav Andelkovic, 1995].- Courtesy xoomer.virgilio.it
Indeed, there seems to be little agreement on, nor are any conclusive material backing available out there that sufficiently lean towards one interpretation or the other, what the signs for localities or towns specifically point out. Two common themes that the various interpretations seem to oscillate to and fro, is one either of "foundation" commemorative symbolism [acquiring territory] or "victory" commemorative symbolism [display of spoils of victory in conflict or war]. The issue of whether the  "Tehenu"/"Libyan" palette is justifiably named so has been explored over the course of this post, particularly as it pertains to the "Tehenu" socio-ethnic entity; but what about a relatively more generalized prospect of the palette featuring groups from "Libyan" territory? Well, again, some level of evidential specificity has to be first established that narrows the possible territorial candidacy down to a fairly restricted geographical confine, which in this case would be the area where modern Libya now lies, as opposed to evidence that might narrow the likely geographical location down to a sub-continental level or a wide regional level. Some of that has been looked at in terms of certain fauna, but that sort of evidence can only go so far in pinning down a specific restricted locality, since such fauna were likely found in multiple locals in the same general time frame. And even if one were to narrow the likely territory down to "Libya", that stills tells us little about the specific ethnicity or nationality involved, which in this case, some observers are inclined to implicate the "Tehenu". We've covered how J. Capart sort to make such connection via what is referenced as "spoils", between that seen in the Sahure wall mural—claimed to be associated with the Tehenu—and that seen in the "Libyan"/"Tehenu" palette; he does make some interesting comparisons around the fauna, but even then, as discussed above, questions continue to linger around human figures, what they feature in terms of gear and attire, and accompanying hieroglyphs of the scenery. The damages on the "Tehenu" palette for instance, make it difficult to ascertain any trends about the human figures on the recto side the palette; the Narmer palette on the other hand, provides a better opportunity to make a comparative analysis between the human figures and themes on that palette and say, those on the Sahure wall mural. The usefulness of the Narmer palette in our case study lies in its implication in featuring themes around "Libyan" or possibly "Tehenu" foe. Pressing issues around this implication have also been briefly covered here.

As further information comes to mind, this post will be correspondingly be modified.
_____________________________________________________________
*References:

— Sources as already cited.

— Retrieval of personal notes from elsewhere.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Who were the Ancient Israelites? A Multidisciplinary search for Answers

Image Caption: "Parting of the Red Sea", during the alleged emigration of ancestors of Jewish people, made famous by the biblical legend. Click on the image for enlargement
Introduction: 

 

Over the years, this has become an age-old question: Who were the ancient Israelites, really? In what capacity did they actually exist, or what not, and do biblical stories around their eponymous ancestors and rulers reflect actual events?

This is actually a topic that came to attention quite a few years back, and to this day, the topic is controversial as ever. Part of the reason it is controversial, is the religious loyalties of elements both within and outside academia, that said persons want to defend. The other, which like the just-mentioned, probably goes without saying, is apparently longstanding identity/racial politics which certain camps are intent on passionately defending.

On the academic front, say for example—Egyptology, those who do not wish to shake up long held traditional narratives—usually highly romantic portrayals that have become cemented in many minds, with the aid of the likes of Hollywood—of what went down in ancient Egypt (Kmtnwt), and are perhaps in part inspired by biblical narratives, are also very reluctant to look at the subject at different, perhaps refreshing and more sober, angles. Whatever the camp, these ideologues generally share in common, resistance to re-examining their prevailing perceptions/preconceptions in the face of ongoing inflow of strongly substantive material, which challenge said viewpoints.

Friday, March 20, 2009

What the Different Styles of Crowns could mean in the developments leading up to Kmt [Nwt] State Formation

Perhaps few give little thought to the matter, given the oft spoken about Crowns of Kmt (Kemet or "ancient Egypt"), particularly the "White" (Hedjet) and "Red" (Deshret) Crowns, but access to these items as tangible relics of the past has thus far been elusive. Pictures of pharaohs seem to indicate that the king's crown was made from a variety of material, from soft-looking ones [e.g. headdresses] to relatively harder ones. There are quite a variety of them, at that; these undoubtedly include those typically associated with the Neteru.

For its part, the so-called "encyclopedic" Wikipedia attributes this to an Egyptologist named Bob Brier…

Egyptologist Bob Brier has noted that despite its widespread depiction in royal portraits, no actual ancient Egyptian crown has been discovered. Tutankhamun's tomb, discovered largely intact, did contain such regal items as his crook and flail, but not a crown. Crowns were assumed to have magical properties, and Brier's speculation is that there were items a dead pharaoh could not take with him which therefore had to be passed along to his living successor.

…presumably based on notes from: Brier, Bob. PhD. History of ancient Egypt (in Audio). The First Nation in History. The Learning Company. 2001.

If this is Mr. Brier's speculation, there is little that can be made from it, since there were a variety of these 'hard-looking', and hence, very likely "durable", Pharaonic crowns, and just not a single or a few in Kmt. Hence, some of these, provided they were made from durable material as they seemed, should have survived along with other regalia.

It had been suggested, as quoted by a website owner Myra Wysinger, that...


The While and Red Crowns

Though no example of these crowns survive (that we know of), scholars have proposed that they were made of fabric or leather, supplemented in the case of the Red Crown by a "wire" ending in a spiral. Both of these crowns are mentioned in the Pyramid Texts, where their luminous color is associated with the light of celestial bodies.

This prospect is questionable in that, what kind of fabric or leather would be easily made into the shape of say, the white crown, without "hard" support—like metal—to act as a "skeleton"? If a metallic/wooden "skeleton" was needed to provide the shape of the leather or fabric "covered" crown, then is it not reasonable that this "skeleton" is expected to be found? Even a scenario of having a single crown of each kind at a time doesn't necessarily excuse the status of no solid-material/hardened crown being found; if a hard-crown is made of durable material, which the likes of the white crown and red crown suggest, then it is reasonable to expect such material to survive for some time, especially given that crowns are supposed to be important symbols of royalty, i.e. the "divine"-appointed ruler of the land.

Archaeologically, we are told by touregypt.net website, that the first sight of the 'red crown' which was presumably associated with "lower Egypt", actually occurs in Upper Egypt [Nagadan complex] rather than in the Delta or Lower Egyptian area:

"The red crown, or deshret, may very well have originated in Upper Egypt, although it eventually became associated as the symbol of Lower Egypt. A sherd from a large vessel dated to late Naqada I, near the town of Nubt, the city of Set, has a representation in relief of the red crown, and on both the Narmer palette (one side) and macehead the king’s figure is shown wearing the red crown. - M. Parsons, touregypt.net

This theme is repeated by several other observers, namely for example,...

In the Wadi Qash, a branch of the Wadi Hammamat, Wilkinson (Genesis, p. 80) cites two rock drawings of men wearing red crowns, which he dates to Naqada I (c. 3600 BC). These drawings place the red crown earliest in Upper Egypt, just where we would expect to find the white crown — only the white crown is nowhere to be seen at this time. From this it appears that the red crown was initially associated with Upper Egypt — or at least the Wadi Hammamat — and that the white crown was a later arrival from somewhere else. - Genesis of the Pharaohs: Genesis of the ‘Ka’ and Crowns?, by Timothy Kendall.

the Double Crown, comprising Red Crown (first attested as a motif on a pot sherd from Naqada in southern Upper Egypt, dating to the Naqada Period) and White Crown - the two crowns seem to be designed to form a unit, the White Crown slotting into the Red Crown and being held in place by its distinctive frontal coil; the first monument on which a king is shown wearing both crowns is the siltstone cosmetic palette of king Narmer (depicted on one side of the palette wearing the White Crown, and on the other side wearing the Red Crown); some deities wear one or other of these crowns, but they are not worn by the human subjects of the king - University College London, digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk

The sherd of pottery that is being alluded to in the above, was pictorially reproduced in Wilkinson's publication [Early Dynastic Egypt] below (fig. 1):



Another Predynastic figure sporting what appears to be the Red Crown, as alluded to by Timothy Kendall above, also from Upper Egypt [Wadi Qash] and dating back to around the Nagada I phase:



Also, from the Palermo stone piece, we come across several king figures of presumably the predynastic era; some observers guess that they must be from the delta, because of the Red Crown, but this premise is questionable on the grounds that no predynastic era-oriented material of either authored Kings' list, tags or tombs filled up with regalia symbols as such [i.e. the Red Crown] have been recovered to verify it, as far as one can come to attention:



This below is an ivory piece that was dedicated to king Djer. In that image, only the Red Crown is visible; no sign of the White crown here.



Many of the pre-dynastic Abydos or Nagadan rulers were often artistically rendered with the familiar cloth "Pharoanic" headdresses, and very rarely seen with the Hedjet ("White" Crown). The Red Crown however, occasionally appeared alone [without double rendition of a king wearing both crowns] on "predynastic" figures, as seen in that example above, of an apparently old rendering in Wadi Qash, and on the alleged pre-dynastic Kings shown on the Palermo stone, also above. Only on figures fairly close to the turn of the predynastic era, like say, exemplified by King Scorpion, do we begin to come across the Hedjet displayed on the of heads of Nagadan or Abydos situated Kings. Speaking of which, below is a sculpture of an unidentified King at Abydos, presumably dating to earliest dynasties (ca. Dynasty 0 or 1st) or the very late predynastic line of kings; he is clearly sporting the Hedjet ("White" Crown) on his head:


Archeological evidence seem to indicate that both the Red Crown and the White crown originate in the Upper Nile Valley region. The reckoning here could be that the reason the Red Crown eventually came to be associated with north regions, is that the Red Crown line of kings progressively [prior to the introduction of the White Crown in the Nagadan strongholds] brought certain territories in that general region under their control to some degree or another before the effective unification of the entire sub-region [both Upper and Lower Egyptian regions] under one centralized polity. The White crown may have been introduced from lower Ta-Seti shortly before said unification. The earliest pictorial attestations of the Hedjet displayed on a king figure appears to come from the Qustul cemetary regalia.

In relation to the last point, concerning Ta-Seti, a possibility here is that Red crown rulers in predynastic upper Egyptian [perhaps Nagadan] complexes made some headway in dominating parts of lower predynastic Egypt before 'newcomer' elites [white crown rulers]—coming further from the south [like from Ta-Seti or perhaps beyond]—became dominant in the Nagadan complex, as a result of political alliances and perhaps conquests. This process would mean that regalia of the Red Crown Upper Egyptian rulers would have been found in lower Egyptian regions under their sphere of influence, before the consolidation of the political authority of the 'white crown' rulers in the greater part of Upper Egypt. Once this consolidation was accomplished in Upper Egypt, there would have been a move to incorporate the holdout 'spheres of influence' of the Red crown kings of Upper Egypt in Lower Egypt into the new consolidated Upper Egyptian polity, to be dominated by the White crown. As a symbol of complete unification, the white crown and red crown were harmonized by 'combining them', as seen in some places. And yes, this would have meant the movement of people from Upper Egypt to the Lower Egyptian regions.

Recounting a discussion, the present author raised "questions" about the "possibility" of a "surrogate" Ta-seti polity in the so-called Nagadan complex, as one of the possible ways, amongst the others out there, by which "White Crown" rulers from further south of Abydos may have sought to consolidate their rule in the greater part of "Egyptian" territory; direct conquest from further south was the other possibility among said possibilities already examined in the preceding passages. Think of a "surrogate polity" as a 'proxy' polity, or a polity that is tied (related) to or pays allegiance to another polity/administration elsewhere. In the context of the predynastic upper Egyptian polities, the question was raised based on archaeological indicators of "concurrently" running polities in Ta-Seti and Nagada...and a study that determined royal remains in the Upper Egyptian regions north of Ta-Seti to have close affinities with those in what is dubbed "Nubia". That said study of royal remains was described as follows:

"A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that theindividuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other.

A comparison with neighboring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt.

Extract from: American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 101, Issue 2, October 1996, Pages: 237-246.

Going back to that Timothy Kendall excerpt posted earlier, the work it came from said something related to what has just been relayed, but tells us little more beyond that, read:

From Timothy Kendall, Genesis of the Pharaohs: Genesis of the ‘Ka’ and Crowns?, courtesy of aforementioned Myra Wysinger via her site...


"In the Wadi Qash, a branch of the Wadi Hammamat, Wilkinson (Genesis, p. 80) cites two rock drawings of men wearing red crowns, which he dates to Naqada I (c. 3600 BC). These drawings place the red crown earliest in Upper Egypt, just where we would expect to find the white crown — only the white crown is nowhere to be seen at this time. From this it appears that the red crown was initially associated with Upper Egypt — or at least the Wadi Hammamat — and that the white crown was a later arrival from somewhere else. Both the red and white crowns have ungainly shapes, hardly natural as head-wear. The red crown was a low cylindrical hat with a high spike-like pillar at the back, from which a rigid, curling element projected forward. The white crown was very tall and conical, and swelled slightly at the peak to form a knob. Neither form has been satisfactorily explained. What ideas lay behind such crowns? Where and how did they originate, and what did they symbolize? Wilkinson’s book may offer clues. The most distinctive aspect of the red crown is its curled element, which has the same shape as the later coiled ‘rope’ hieroglyph (Gardiner 1969, V 1). One would thus assume that this feature symbolized a rope. This symbol appears again as an element in another hieroglyph, which is the standard of the god Min (Gardiner 1969, O 44). Here the coiled rope appears between a pair of bull horns mounted on the top of an upright post. The combination of motifs — post, bull horns, and rope — seems to evoke the action of tethering a bull, an activity of the Min figure (or his human double) frequently pictured in the rock art (Genesis, figs. 37, 38, 39, 41, 52). The early presence of the red crown in the Wadi Hammamat coupled with its morphological similarity to the Min standard may suggest that the crown, and the kingship it represented, emerged in the Eastern Desert out of the Min cult. Its name (ds&rt: ‘the red one’) may even suggest a relationship with the desert (ds&rt ‘the red land’).

The Min standard with bull horns (also called ‘ka’) usually appears in dynastic art erected in front of a very tall, tubular, phallic-shaped shrine, known as the sh.nt, before which Min stands (Munro 1983, figs.). This structure, described as a ‘primitive tent shrine of the desert’, was either conical or spiked at the top and was usually depicted with a doorway or pylon in its lower half, indicating that it was many times the height of a man. The shrine was supposed to have housed a bull (‘ka’) consecrated to Min, and many scenes from dynastic art depict the raising of such shrines by Nubian men with feathers in their hair (Isler 1991, 158 ff.; Giuliani in press). In some scenes we see that the rope of the Min standard, which coils between the bull horns, is actually attached to the base of the spiked top of the sh.nt just as the curled ‘rope’ element of the red crown emerges from the crown’s spike. In other images, the sh.nt appears with a conical rather than spiked summit, and its peak sometimes terminates in a knob (Isler 1991, 161, fig. 7). In such renderings the sh.nt has an equally strong resemblance to the white crown. This leads us to consider the possibility that both the red and white crowns may have derived from the Min cult but simulated different forms of the sh.nt. (Might the white colour of the ‘white crown’ be related to the white colour of the clothing of Min, as it appears in dynastic art?) Unfortunately, the earliest known depictions of the sh.nt in Egyptian art date from the 6th Dynasty, and nothing like a sh.nt appears in the rock art. It is hard to imagine, however, that such a distinctive shrine would simply be invented in the late Old Kingdom and inserted into a cult already very old. One suspects that the sh.nt may have been there all along but had not been represented.

The origin of the white crown is ambiguous. Its first appearance in Egypt may be a rock drawing in the Wadi Abbad, about 50 km east of Edfu (Genesis, p. 192). Here, a figure wearing a tall crown (without knob) appears seated on a Naqada II-style boat, accompanied by a bull and a figure of Min. The image is apparently two or three centuries later than the earliest images of the red crown. The Wadi Abbad, it should be noted, intersects the Nile near El-Kab and Hierakonpolis. These were the cities of Nekhbet and Horus Nekheny, respectively — the deities of the historic white crown kingship. Oddly, in the famous painted tomb of Hierakonpolis, also Naqada II, there is not one representation of a white crown among the numerous images of the ruler. And on the painted textile from Gebelein the ruler seated in the boat wears only a kind of bowler hat (Genesis, pl. 12).

Ironically, the earliest certain images of the white crown come not from Egypt but from Qustul in Lower Nubia, about 300 km up-river from Hierakonpolis. These images occur on two incense burners of uniquely Nubian type, which depict kings seated in archaic high-prowed boats wearing abnormally tall crowns with knobs, accompanied by bulls and Horus falcons(Williams 1980; 1986, pls. 33, 34). They date to about 3300 BC. The same crown then appears not long afterwards in Egypt: on an unprovenienced ivory knife handle in the Metropolitian Museum and, later still, on the Scorpion mace head and Narmer palette (Wilkinson 1999, 194–5). The evidence can be interpreted several ways:

a) the white crown was exclusively Egyptian, and it is Egyptian kings who are represented on the Qustul incense burners;

b) the white crown was used simultaneously by competing rulers in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia; or

c) the white crown was first used in Nubia and spread northwards.

It was obviously associated with riverine kingship (kings in boats), bulls (the Min cult) and the god Horus. The white crown is usually assumed to be a homegrown Egyptian symbol—badge of the kings of the emergent Upper Egyptian state. They obviously pushed the red-crown wearers into Lower Egypt before the advent of the dynastic era. We need at least to consider the possibility, however, that the white crown might have had a Nubian origin. Varying forms of the shrine of Min, showing their similarities to the red and white crowns. When Egypt conquered the A-Group rulers of Qustul, they may simply have adopted their crown, just as they adopted the red crown to legitimize their claims to the north. This may explain why Ta-Seti (Lower Nubia), from the beginning of dynastic history, was Egypt’s first nome (Baines & Malek 1986, 15).

It may seem surprising, but there is a strong ancient tradition linking the white crown to Upper Nubia. In the first century BC, Diodorus Siculus (3.2.1–3.6) wrote that at the beginning of time the Egyptians and Nubians (‘Aithiopians’) were one people and that Osiris (i.e. their first king) came from ‘Aithiopia’ and colonized Egypt after it was created by the out-flowing Nile. This, he states, explains why Nubian and Egyptian customs are similar and why the kings of both countries wear ‘tall pointed felt hats ending in a knob’(Eide et al. 1996, 645). This story can be traced back to the early 18th Dynasty, when the Thutmosid pharaohs established their southern cultic frontier at Jebel Barkal, near the Fourth Cataract. This mountain is distinguished by a 75 m high pinnacle, in whose natural shape the Egyptians saw the vague features of a gigantic figure (i.e.Osiris) as well as a rearing uraeus (Nekhbet of el-Kab), both wearing the white crown. Because they also recognized the rock as an erect phallus, they believed they had discovered here the original mound of Creation — a Nubian Heliopolis and Karnak—and the birthplace and residence of the primeval ithyphallic Amun (= Min). Since the mountain lay in the extreme south, they identified its god as the source of the inundation and fertility. Since it was the perceived home of the southern uraeus (a southern el-Kab), they also believed it was the birthplace of the white crown. They thus built here an important coronation complex and Pr-wr (temple of Nekhbet) (Kendall 1997, 168–70; 2002; 2004). They simultaneously built Luxor (‘Southern Sanctuary’) as a Theban manifestation of Jebel Barkal in order to honour the same god and to perform the same coronations locally (Pamminger 1992; Kendall 2004). At the end of the New Kingdom the Amun priesthood at Thebes took away the right of the kings to rule the South. I am presently investigating a hypothesis that this may have been due to the fact that the pharaohs had lost control of Jebel Barkal and had allowed Nubia to become detached from Upper Egypt. The priesthood only willingly restored the white crown to a ruling family in the eighth century BC, when they recognized the Nubian kings of Kush as heirs to the imperial pharaohs by virtue of their renewed control of Jebel Barkal and their ability to reunite it with Karnak. Like the New Kingdom pharaohs, the 25th-Dynasty kings believed that through their control of Jebel Barkal they were heirs to the ‘kingship of Re’. It was this belief that drove the Egyptianizing Meroitic state in the Sudan for the next thousand years. The Jebel Barkal pinnacle is the largest freestanding monolith in the Nile Valley, and to superstitious ancient man its impact on the senses and imagination would have been enormous. When the Egyptians laid eyes on it in the early 18th Dynasty, they thought they had rediscovered the source of the white crown and the home of their first kings. Was this merely contrived history, or was this belief based on some genuine, possibly ancient Nubian tradition?

Surely the Nubians who greeted the Egyptians must have venerated this rock in similar ways, if ethnological parallels can be applied. Many modern animist peoples of the Sudan typically worship large phallic-shaped stones and identify them simultaneously with ancestors and totemic animals and consider them sources of fertility (Bell 1936; Bolton 1936).

Morkot (2000, p. 55) has shown that some Upper and Lower Nubian kings, independent of the pharaohs, were wearing the white crown at the time of the 11th–17th Dynasties. Is it possible that this practice, usually described as ‘emulating the pharaohs’, might actually be a native tradition going back to Qustul? The problem is that we have almost no pre-Egyptian Nubian representational art— or texts. However, a recently discovered Egyptian text from the tomb of Sobeknakht, governor of el-Kab in the late 17th Dynasty, recounts a massive Nubian invasion of Egypt as far north as el-Kab, apparently by the king of Kerma. Might this have been launched to extend that potentate’s ‘white crown’ control over Upper Egypt (Davies 2003)? Is it a coincidence that the territory over which Huy, Viceroy of Kush, later claimed administrative control extended from el-Kab to Jebel Barkal (Davies & Gardiner 1926, 11)?

A prehistoric Sudanese origin for the white crown may sound preposterous, but is it beyond possibility? The most important point made by Wilkinson in Genesis is that the climate in Upper Egypt was much wetter in the early fourth millennium BC. This implies that the farther south one went, the rainfall would have been greater, and the deserts more habitable. Greater rainfall would have meant higher inundations and better seasonal navigation of the Nile. Recent studies indicate that the great wadis of the northern Sudan were all major Nile tributaries at this time (see, for example, Keding in press; Fuller 1998). Communication would have been easier between north and south, which probably accounts for the striking cultural uniformity between Egypt and Nubia at this time (Wilkinson 1999, 176; Wengrow 2003b, 126–35). The similarity of style between the rock drawings of Upper Egypt and northern Sudan implies wide-ranging pastoralist peoples of similar backgrounds (Chittick 1962; Allard-Huard 1993; Paner 2003, 19, pl. 12), who probably all worshipped some form of Min (a god venerated, according to later Egyptian texts, from Upper Egypt to ‘Punt.’). Would it be so difficult to imagine that in the late fifth or early fourth millennium BC local herdsmen venerated the Jebel Barkal pinnacle was worshipped by surrounding herders both as a god’s phallus and as a divine ancestor in stone wearing a strange, very tall pointed headdress? If so, wouldn’t the leaders of these peoples have adopted a similar crown to show their descent from him? If the crown symbolized the god’s phallus, then the wearers of the crown would have been perceived as the bearers of the god’s fertility wherever they went. And if some of them roamed far north from Jebel Barkal—into Lower Nubia — with their herds (see Castiglioni & Castiglioni 2003, pl. XXXI), wouldn’t they have continued to worship the god in his tall sh.nt shrine, which duplicated the form of the mountain’s deified monolith? From there these symbols could have easily passed to the earliest rulers of Egypt.

If it seems improbable that an Egyptian crown would have its prehistoric origins in the Sudan, would it not be just as improbable to find there that an ancient Egyptian royal emblem had survived to modern times as a symbol of high political office? Visiting the Khalifa’s House Museum in Omdurman in January 2004, I saw a glass case containing some of the possessions of the Mahdi’s successor, the Khalifa Abdullahi el-Taishi (died 1899), who would have known nothing of the pharaohs. There, together with his Qur’ans, was his wooden staff: a classic was scepter!"

- Ends -

The idea that the Red Crown must have always been a "delta Nile Valley thing", comes from narratives setup to explain off scenes displayed on the Narmer Palette. This has often been invoked as events surrounding unification of the two lands; the delta region—represented by the Red crown, and upper Egypt—represented by the White crown. However, like Narmer, King Scorpion II—presumed to have preceded Narmer—also sported a Red crown in one scene, and a White one in another. Surely, this too could well be interpreted as relating events surrounding unification of the regions. If so, then this would have implied two major unification events, and thus along with it, weaken the 'Narmer as the first unifier' viewpoint. Some of course, have tried to work around the seemingly contradictory indicators, by suggesting that while the initiative and undertaking of bringing the said regions under a centralized polity may have began under rulers who proceeded Narmer, it culminated into Narmer's unification endeavor. From a personal viewpoint, this just goes to show the hypothetical nature of the narrative about not only Narmer being the absolute first unifier, but also the notion that the Red crown must have been the regalia of a lower Egyptian polity(s), while the White crown was that of the upper Egyptian rulers. The latter particularly seems to be so romanticized and attractive, that it is virtually repeated everywhere as though it were gospel truth, despite the fact of no predynastic Red crown regalia having ever showed up in lower Egypt, let alone predate the upper Egyptian examples of the same item. However, any idea that the Red crown may very well be ultimately upper Egyptian in origin [as preponderance of evidence as it stands, suggests] would require a relatively more complicated storyline than the aforementioned, which one imagines, lessens its appeal in some circles. Personally, not a single large royal tomb associated with any specific delta king assigned to a specific territory comes to mind, let alone an elaborate list of kings, tags implicating them or what have you.

On the question of the last point, a recent article posted by weekly.ahram.org.eg, titled "Not rivals but culturally united", followed by the attention-grabber of "Sensational discoveries by a Polish mission in the Nile Delta have revealed that far from being hostile regions as previously supposed, Upper and Lower Egypt were politically united in predynastic times, says Jill Kamil", noted:

"Now, thanks to the Polish discoveries, it is fairly certain that there were indeed two predynastic capitals of Upper and Lower Egypt."

This elicited the following response in a reader...

I also don't see where there were TWO capitals, as the article claims: "Now, thanks to the Polish discoveries, it is fairly certain that there were indeed two predynastic capitals of Upper and Lower Egypt. Fairly certain? Where? I see a well endowed northern location, flush with many material goods, but how does this make a "capital" or "state" of Lower Egypt? Am I missing something here? Indeed, it seems that several objects found relate to similar things inthe south like the carved dwarfs. And the Hed-Sed festival is very ancient, no doubt found south as well. - by forum discussant going by the moniker of "Zarahan".
 
Indeed, as the present author replied the discussant above, the article itself makes no specific mention of anything in way of tangible evidence, to my knowledge, that directly bespeaks centralized local state authority in the Delta, as we see in the Upper Egyptian areas.

For instance, we don't see record like this, as noted by the authors of said article themselves below, in the Delta areas prior to "unification":

However, archaeologists excavating at Abydos have found historical proof of the order of succession of the earliest kings of Pharaonic Egypt (inscribed on a clay seal), and also, in a predynastic and already heavily excavated cemetery, evidence of a possible 15 kings before Narmer (Menes/Aha), who stands at the beginning of recorded dynastic history.

Yet the mentioning of two supposed "capitals" might misleadingly insinuate that there was some sort of major centralized polity(s) in Lower Egypt which is somehow elicited or implicated by tangible evidence, when no such evidence exists or has been brought to light.


It looks like the notion of "two capitals" here was merely an inference made from an allusion to the "leading urban" centers, which according to said article, were supposedly gleaned from recent archaeological material findings; the author(s) of the article and/or proponents of the said "leading urban" centers figured that these centers must have had local authority respective to each and note, with attention to emphasis:

During the long predynastic era, different settlements (identified with totems) appear to have expanded their boundaries and begun to coalesce. Maybe some tribal groups gravitated towards larger ones and started to trade and barter with them. A process of assimilation took place. They became more dependent on one another, and there was a natural fusion into larger social units. Gradually the affairs of various villagers became **tied to a major settlement, which undoubtedly represented the richest and most powerful of them**. This is especially apparent at Nekhen near the modern town of Edfu, where there are five unusually large graves among the burials, and, as we now know, at Buto in the Delta.

To reiterate, the article provides no specific evidence about Delta Kings, their kings' list and large tombs, as noted, that we see in the case of upper Egypt, to suggest the existence of some major autonomous "capital" of the delta area, which was presumably that of centralized delta polity. The article however, does go onto reiterate some of the issues raised by previous observers, about possible cultural unification processes along the Nile Valley prior to first actual political unification and consolidation of a large area under the first of the Dynasties of the unified state of Egypt. One example of this from the article,...

"Cialowcz points out that before Upper Egyptians
entered the Delta, there were at least two centres that
rivalled them in every field. "Cultural unification
[which is observed in archaeological materials all
over Egypt, from Elephantine to the Mediterranean]
was not equal to political union."

As the present author had noted here, when the article was brought to attention...

What the authors of the present article were presumably driving at in their own way, is that Upper Egyptian and Delta polities competed with one another [as many nations still do—regardless of "socio-economic" and "military" status, i.e. even between the stronger and the weaker states over natural resources and strategic trade routes] over gaining the upper hand in access to not just in situ Nile Valley [including as far as where Kush lay] natural resources and trade, but also strategic corridors to accessing trade and resources in the "Near East", while also gaining the upper hand in political clout. In the process, so reckons the article, there were cultural fusions that culturally unified the regions involved to some extent or another before actual conquest endeavors [primarily from the south] and political unification under a central authority, but that Upper Egyptian polities were more advantaged when it came to the socio-economic situation and political clout.

Even so, it goes onto say,

Cialowcz points out that before Upper Egyptians entered the Delta, there were at least two centres that rivalled them in every field. "Cultural unification [which is observed in archaeological materials all over Egypt, from Elephantine to the Mediterranean] was not equal to political union.

And:

The thrust for expansion, and ultimate unification, came from the south.

...meaning that "the south" was more socio-economically advanced, giving it the upper hand to unite the general territory under a single centralized authority.

Recounting the present author's own postings back in 2005—in a discussion board, the following was raised, featuring different publishers/authors and evidently sporting themes about gradual cultural unification, as a side effect of trade and political relations along the Nile Valley prior to full unification into a single large state:

There is no question within academia, about the creation of a unified Egyptian nation state, the first central nation state, being the initiative of the Upper Egyptian establishment. However, there seem to have been differences in viewpoints as to how this came about. For instance, was it the culmination of military conquest of the Lower Nile Valley polity by the Upper Nile Valley polity...OR, was it a more peaceful and gradual process of Upper Egyptians moving northward, as a result of trade initiatives, resulting in the relations between the regions to grow into a unified state, with the more socio-economically developed Upper Egypt, and hence, its more powerful leadership having the advantage to rule over all lands?

Perhaps interesting questions for one to ponder!


In reply, a respondent wrote:  
It is possible that it was a combination of both, but the war and violence part we definitely have evidence of. 

Even the formation of each of the Two Lands had some sort of violence involved. Look at the glyphs of King Scorpion. There appeared to be conflict between Nekhen and Nakada as well as other city-states.
In response to the respondent, the present author wrote:

Agreed. Here is what Professor Kathryn Bard; Trustees of Boston University and the Journal of Field Archaeology, put together:

...Based on an analysis of archaeological evidence, the earliest writing in Egypt, and later king lists, Kaiser (1964: 118, 105-114) proposes that the Nagada culture expanded north in Nagada IIc-d times to sites in the Fayum region (such as the cemetery at Gerza), and then later to the Cairo area and the Delta. The unification, therefore, was much earlier than the period immediately preceding the beginning of the First Dynasty (Kaiser 1964: 114, 1985: 61-62, 1990: 288-289).

Trigger (1987: 61), however, states that if the unification occurred at an early date there would be archaeological evidence from Nagada III burials of a court-centered high culture. Instead, Trigger proposes that the northward expansion of the Nagada culture during Nagada II-III was the result of refugees emigrating from the developing states in the south, or the presence of Nagada traders involved in commerce with SW Asia. While the unification may have been achieved through conquest in the north, an earlier unification of southern polities (Nagada, Hierakonpolis, and Abydos), may have been achieved by a series of alliances (Trigger 1987: 61).
The eventual replacement of Maadi artifacts in the north by a material culture originating in the south may represent military exploits, while colonization by southerner may have occurred in northern regions where there were less well-developed local polities, as at Gerza or Minshat Abu Omar. Guksch (1991: 41) suggests that the Nagada IId ceramic horizon in Lower Egypt represents expanded Upper Egyptian trade into the NE Delta in late Nagada II times, with a (later) militarily-achieved political unification in Nagada III/dynasty 0 times. Possibly there was first a more or less peaceful (?) movement or migration(s) of Nagada culture peoples from south to north that may have been formalized by a later, or concurrent, military presence. A shift in settlement patterns is seen, and by the First Dynasty the north was much more densely inhabited than the south (Mortensen 1991: 24).
Archaeological evidence suggests a system much too complex for the southern expansion to be explained by military conquest alone, and the northern culture may have made important contributions to the unified polity which emerged (Seeher 1991: 318). One result of this expansion throughout northern Egypt would have been a greatly elaborated (state) administration, and by the beginning of the First Dynasty this was managed in part by the invention of writing, used on seals and tags affixed to state goods.

Source: Link!


*Subject to updating without notice.

Friday, December 5, 2008

The Kmt-famed Pwnt ("Punt"): Exactly where was it located!


The name "Pwnt", known by many in the "West" as "Punt", has come to us by Kemetic accounts and legends of journeys to this exotic land, generally given an air of veneration, i.e. ancestral veneration, one perhaps predicated on the idea of distant ancestors coming from the south. One sees recurring themes of this air of respect in both wall reliefs depicting journeys to and descriptions invoked legends around this 'exotic' land. Without these accounts, all else about this land would have been lost to us, at least in so far as we now know it—as "Pwnt", as it only appears by that moniker in Kemetic records; no actual scripts of the "Puntites" have been uncovered in archaeological areas "of interest", that researchers suspect, again from Kemetic descriptions, to have hosted the community of "Pwnt" that we all have heard time and again about from Kemetians. Because of this, the precise whereabouts of "Pwnt" remains mysterious to some degree; if Kemetic descriptions have provided a hint that narrows down the most plausible general location, then the same cannot be said about either the precise location of the center of administration or the territorial extent of "Pwnt". This leaves the "Land of Punt" becoming a subject of speculation and debate. One recurring theme in debates, is the physiological appearance of 'Pwnt' occupants on wall reliefs. That aside, other groups are invoked in the "Land of Punt". The following is a well known snapshot of a disfigured wall relief painting that has seen much circulation on the web:



Snapshots like that above have been used to reach the conclusion that the "Puntites" had a single physiological appearance, wherein the facial characteristics resembled that conventionally applied to Kemetic figures or personalities; in a word, "Puntites" seemingly lacked intra-population diversity. Some discussants have used this as proof that "Puntites" must have lived on the Red Sea coast of Africa or the African Horn, as if to suggest that diversity does not occur in that region itself. Other images though, don't paint a picture quite so simplistic; they show occupants in and around "Punt" that present an air of diversity about the region. An example of this can be seen below:


(click for hi resolution)

The old Them "Negroes" or "Nubians" aspect of the aforementioned subject of speculation and debate...

The resolution of the repro above apparently isn't high enough, but closer examination [click on the image above] shows that the four beardless kneeling figures for instance, on the topmost upper far right hand side, have facial characteristics distinct from figures that follow them [as well as the four kneeling figures immediately below them], whom in turn at least differ in clothing styles and other gear. Some have explained off this "anomalous" situation by suggesting that they happen to be "Nubians". One proponent in this regard is Jack Phillip, whom in his reproduced wall relief renditions, as provided below, deduces that the said beardless kneeling figures on the upper right hand side of the image must be "Nubians"; Phillip's motivation and basis for this apparently comes respectively, from the curiosity inspired by the apparent diversity in the wall relief in question, and in a zeal to explain off the distinctive facial characteristics of said kneeling figures relative to the bearded counterparts, he sought to find the answer in the Mdu-Ntr accompanying the figures, which reads in hieroglyphic signs as follows; n - m - j - w . Hence, Phillip reads "Nmjw" as "Nubians"; it matters not, if these folks were occupants of Kush or in regions between Kemet's southern nome and Kush, which "Western" scholars have traditionally and indiscriminately called "Nubia" even though such a geographical or political entity never actually existed, or yet, they were a segment of populations inhabiting the so-called land of "Punt". It is convenient for Phillip to do so, because in traditional "Western" discourse "Nubian" is essentially tantamount "Forest Negro" archetype, that is to say—any occupants along the Nile Valley that are deemed to not facially meet the "caucasoid" archetype. Hence, "Nubian" in this context is more than just a Eurocentric-created geographical moniker. Now of course, there is also another glyph accompanying the figures immediately below the two figures [whom Phillip says are "Nubians"], but their faces appear to have disappeared in a disfigured area of the wall relief; this glyph is apparently distinct from the one just read as "Nmjw"; it is relatively hard to make the words out there, save to say that the glyphs for either "ir" or simply an ideogram for "see, observe, or watch", followed by "m", and then what appears to be the determinative for "lake" [at the least], are visible. Is this another name yet for "Nubians"? Well, no word on that yet.

Courtesy of Jack Phillip, Punt and Aksum,...


Looking at that close-up repro above, are another set of four kneeling figures; this time bearded, and are right below the figures whom Phillip deems to be "Nubians". Aside from their beards, these kneeling figures have a relatively more "generalized" [facial] appearance relative to the remainder of personalities in this snapshot repro of the larger wall relief. Accompanying the bearded kneeling figure at the bottom end, on the far right, are glyphs that read respectively, p - wn - n - t + determinative for land. Right above this hieroglyphic ensemble of "Pwnnt", which is generally read as simply "Pwnt", there are recurring glyphs of three birds followed by some hard-to-make-out signs [due to bad resolution of the images]. These could perhaps either be ideograms presenting an air of "subordination" of the kneeling figures, or else some yet-to-be sort out word; the [bird] glyphs themselves are usually associated with the letters "wr".

The first figure immediately following the kneeling beardless [Phillip's "Nubians"] figures on the top half of the image above, appears to have no goatee, and has a relatively more rounded and short [light toned] wig(?). On the bottom half of the same image, again the first personality immediately following the four kneeling figures, i.e. the bearded ones, sports a relatively short & round wig(?) that is distinct from both the kneeling figures preceding him from the right hand side, and the figures following him, who sport longer wigs (hair) with head bands; moreover, he is wearing a loincloth-garment that is stylistically distinct from those of the figures behind and in front of him, and has a goatee that is relatively shorter than those of said figures to his either side. His distinctive "short" goatee also sets him apart from the aforementioned standing figure immediately above him, who sports no goatee. It's also necessary to note the stylistic differences between the last three bearded standing figures on the bottom section/register of the image, from the left hand side; the one on the far left, holding the leash of a baboon [we will later examine the exotic animals], has a loincloth-garment (Schenti) that sports a two-pronged strap of cloth draped from the waist over the genital area that we generally see on "Puntite" figures in other images, but the two fellows immediately preceding him, sport the "one piece" strap of cloth draped from the waist over the genital area. Is this just a matter of garment variety in 'Pwnt', a matter of social-class distinctions, or a matter of ethnic distinction? This deserves to be examined.

Some interpret this one occasion as an "anomaly", in its supposed depiction of what some deem "Negroid" characters; however, it is not alone in displaying diversity in imagery associated with 'Pwnt'; take the image below, for instance:



Once again in the above, we come across figures not only displaying a variety of garments, but also apparent physiological diversity. The distinctive plants generally invoked in imagery of the exotic land of "Pwnt" recur here; in particular, the "palm-tree" looking plants and the stunted "tree-like" plants sporting "dome-looking" branch-leaf ensembles on top of their trunks [possibly myrrh trees], or alternatively, the latter type of plants could be compared in shape to a spade. Also, hard not to notice as a recurring theme, is the "dome-topped" architecture or dwelling of some sort, usually with small ladder placed against an opening carved into that dome-like top; this [recurring] architecture seems to be a distinctive feature of the "Land of Punt". We will see these themes again in other imagery associated with 'Pwnnt' or 'Pwnt'. When finally coming to terms with recurring themes of diversity, at least in so far as diversity actually exists in imagery associated with 'Pwnnt/Pwnt', what is the next predictable recourse of some ideologically-inflexible dogmatists in explaining the apparent diversity? Yes, you guessed it: the 'Pwnt' occupants who do not meet their "ideal" perception of who the "Puntites" ought to or should be, and these are occupants who are inclined to also be dismissed as "Negroids, Negroes or black Africans" in some quarters, are branded as "slaves"; of course, these are claims with no textual or primary Kemetic support to them—suggesting that one group of 'Pwnt' occupants here are slaves and the other are just 'freely-living' locals. It is the old answer to the "Negro" question; if their presence cannot be explained as merely that of the "foreigner" in the land under discussion, then they must surely be "slaves". In what can only elicit one's amusement, one forum discussant went as far as invoking 'slavery' in Ethiopia back in ca. 4th century, presumably as his idea of evidence for said claim, concerning wall relief renditions that are dated substantially well before the common era. Some of these ideologues, in a halfhearted attempt to partake in what to them essentially allows them self-expression in a 'politically correct' way, replace "Negroes" with "Nubians" when it comes to dealing with Nile Valley affairs. Adolf Erman presents an interesting case, wherein he acknowledges not only the idea of "Negroes of Punt", but also sees the latter as "natives of "Punt"; careful examination of this at first glance, tells one that this is predicated on the notion that there are presumably people of other ethnicity or "races" who are also natives of "Punt". Indeed, the context of this should be placed within Erman's perception of "Punt" as more of a generalized geographical descriptive that spans the tropical Red coast regions of Africa and coastal portions of southern Arabia [the geographical and political question will follow here soon], rather than a name of a specific centralized state or polity. Here is a copy of paper citing such references by Erman:

Click on the image for hi resolution.

In the same image [scenary of goods being carried in 'Pwnt'] above, reproduced [in black and white below] in Jack Phillip's work, we come across the following:


Noticeably absent in Phillip's repro, is the third piece in the colored version of the image above, on the right hand side, with a very dark-skinned worker holding the leash of a dog or else a "dog-like" animal in one hand, and carrying a shaft of some sort on his shoulder. Alternatively, the colored image above, does not display the "c" piece in Phillip's repro, but it is taken into account elsewhere 'separately'. Could this be indicative of one of the factors behind Phillip's [seemingly] overlooking the diversity in imagery associated with 'Pwnt', and instead, consider the people he sees as "Negroid" in appearance [though doesn't necessarily have to say it out loud] to be "Nubians"? If Phillip's repro doesn't exactly show the big picture of the actual diversity seen in the wall relief, then it may be relatively easy for him to assume [or yet, play it off] that the said renditions don't exist, and hence, overlook them. Under such a circumstance, any "Negroid" looking figures invoked in "Pwnt" imagery [as provided in the example above, with the kneeling figures] would be treated as an anomaly, and conveniently labeled as simply "Nubians". It also appears from the repro above, that Phillip sees the figure in the register "a", as a "woman"; the colored image makes it quite clear that there is nothing particularly feminine about the figure in question, who happens to be a participant in carrying heavy goods, including the myrrh trees. One is predisposed to taking it that Phillip's first impression as such, was likely influenced by the long skirt-like garment of the figure. Such garments as worn by men [which are wrapped around the waist in a fashion almost akin to how men wrap bathroom towels around the waist], are not uncommon in certain areas of the African, but Phillip might not have taken that into consideration.

This "Negroid, Negroes, or Black Africans" theme has been noted elsewhere, as if to say that other 'Pwnt' occupants were of a different "race" or anything but the aforementioned, even going as far as [in some cases, and as noted above] to suggest that these occupants were not really 'Pwnt' natives. To the extent that these sources acknowledge diversity in 'Pwnt' wall relief scenery, it is in this context. Some excerpts from around the net that come to mind in this regard, are as follows:

"The reliefs also showed the features of the Puntine people, who were black Africans, as well as another race much resembling Egyptians.The later group of inhabitants was depicted as red colored (as the traditional color of Egyptians in ancient art), wearing a small beard resembling those of Egyptian priests and the short Egyptian shirts. Donkeys were depicted as the method of transporting goods, and white dogs guarding the people’s houses. Birds, monkeys, leopards and hippopotamus are also seen, as well as giraffes which are typical African animals, to live in Punt. Nehsi is then shown in front of his tent with a banquet offered to his guests, and observing the gifts presented.

Source: Courtesy of touregypt.net

M. Edouard Naville found at Thebes many remains of the Punt sculptures. The Puntites appear with their aquiline features, their pointed beards, and their long hair; **negroes** also of black and brown varieties are represented adjoining the Puntites proper. There are wickerwork huts, and a figure of a large white dog with its ears hanging down. Long-billed birds also appear flying about in the trees. Their nests have been forsaken and robbed, and the men are represented as gathering incense from the trees. Altogether, much invaluable information has been gathered concerning the famous people who lived in the Land of Punt, and with whom for a long period the Egyptians held intercommunication. Other discoveries were made near the great temple of Karnak, and the buildings of Medinet-Habu were cleared of rubbish in order to show their true proportions.

Source: Revue Archeologique, xxix., p. 127

Source: HISTORY OF EGYPT From 330 B.C. to the Present Time By S. RAPPOPORT, Doctor of Philosophy, Basel; Member of the Ecole Langues Orientales, Paris; Russian, German, French Orientalist and Philologist

Even reactionary critiques of an African based "Punt", such as the following, have taken notice...

“the Deir el Bahri reliefs do show a number of African people and apparently African animals, such as at least one rhinoceros and a giraffe. For Bimson, and for many of his readers, this was decisive evidence in proving an African location for the territory. Decisive enough to make them ignore or forget all the other evidence that clearly located Punt/the Divine Land in Palestine/Phoenicia. But if Punt really was Phoenicia, why then such an African influence? Why the large amount of space devoted to seemingly African animals and people with clearly Negroid features? This is a question that cannot be ignored. Velikovsky himself suggested that the African elements were imports, and stressed that the Puntites themselves were not Negroes, but Semites or Hamites. This in fact is true. The Puntites look very much like the Egyptians, and curiously enough, sport long pointed beards of a type worn in Egypt only by the pharaoh. (It should be noted also in this regard that the earliest Egyptian monarchy, the Horus kings of the First Dynasty, claimed to have originated in Punt: and this incidentally provides yet another dramatic connection with Asia; for, as David Rohl has illustrated (Legend: The Genesis of Civilization: 1998), the god Osiris, form whom the Egyptian royalty claimed descent, was not only specifically linked to Byblos, but was himself in origin a Mesopotamian god named Asar. Rohl also shows, in the same place, how the peoples of Lebanon also traced their origin back to Mesopotamia).” - by Emmet Sweeney

Of course, all of these citations are working with biologically "bankrupt" premise of "races", whereby the "negro" represents a strictly narrow and "non-variant" typological archetype.

An interesting feature about 'Pwnt's' diversity, is that the Kemetians professed to have had access to what they called the "dancing dwarf" from the region. Indeed, one sees a recurring theme here, as exemplified by the "dancing pygmies" figurines carved out of *ivory*, found amongst the Kemetic item collection brought in from journeys to their south.


The geographical and political question aspect...

The speculations and debates around the precise location of 'Pwnt' and whether it was even a centralized state named as such, has generated several ideological camps over the years. For instance, the implication that 'Pwnt' may have been located somewhere in the African Horn has spurred interest amongst peoples of this region, but since this region also comprises of modern nation states which are not all necessarily on friendly terms at the state level, competing ideologues from these regions have developed, with each professing 'Pwnt' to actually be primarily their heritage over the other. In other words, there are Eritrean ideologues who claim that it was actually located in what is now Eritrea, and so, must be Eritrean heritage as opposed to Ethiopian. Likewise, Ethiopian and Somali ideologues respectively claim 'Pwnt' to be their heritage as opposed to the other. Another group of ideologues who fall outside of the aforementioned groups from the Horn of Africa, span reactionary ideologues of various nationality who have disdain for things "sub-Saharan African", who reject an African-based 'Pwnt', and instead, prefer to locate it on the other side of the Red Sea. In some occasions, these distinct ideological camps temporarily converge in their perspective, as exemplified by the need to "cleanse" Pwnt off what is deemed to be "Negroid" occupants; neither of these camps generally find comfort in any notion of "native Negroid Puntites", as examined above with examples. To this extent, members of said ideological camps prefer to present "Negroid" occupants as merely servants, slaves or foreigners [whom some conveniently call "Nubians", while others dismiss them as "southern Sudanese" elements], no matter how frivolous the case may be. When the question of the "Puntite dwarf" comes up, members of these ideological camps seek to explain them off as either "Negritos" or "imports from central Africa" respectively, and even as rare and funny as it may seem, some have gone as far as implicating "Khoisans" as these dwarfs, as if Khoisans can be mistaken for pygmies or dwarfs. In a letter to Harkhuf from Pepi II, we come across such "dancing dwarfs", who have apparently been brought in from Yam and Punt respectively ...

A letter to Harkhuf from King Pepi II (aged about 8)

Royal Seal, Year 2, third month of the first season, day 15. Royal decree (to) the Sole Companion, the Ritual Priest and Overseer of Caravans, Harkhuf.

I have noted the matter of this thy letter, which thou hast sent to the king, to the palace, in order that One might know that thou hast descended in safety from Yam with the army which was with thee. Thou hast said (in) this thy letter, that thou hast brought all great and beautiful gifts, which Hathor, mistress of Imaaw, hath given to the ka of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Nefer-ka-re [ i.e., Pepi II], who liveth forever and ever. Thou hast said in this thy letter, that thou hast brought a dancing dwarf of the god from the land of spirits, like the dwarf which the Treasurer-of-the-god Bawer-djed brought from Punt in the time of King Isesi. Thou hast said to my majesty: "Never before has one like him been brought by any other who has visited Yam."

Come northward to the court immediately... thou shalt bring this dwarf with thee,.. living, prosperous and healthy from the land of spirits, for the dances of the god, to rejoice and gladden the heart of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nefer-ka-re (Pepi II), who lives forever. When he goes down with thee into the boat, appoint excellent people, who shall be beside him on each side of the vessel; take care lest he fall into the water! When (he) sleeps at night appoint excellent people who shall sleep beside him in his tent; inspect ten times a night! My majesty desires to see this dwarf more than the gifts of Sinai and of Punt! If thou arrivest at court, this dwarf being with thee alive, prosperous and healthy, my majesty will do for thee a greater thing than that which was done for the Treasurer of the god, Bawer-djed, in the time of King Isesi, according to the heart's desire of my majesty to see this dwarf!

Commands have been sent to the Chief of the New Towns, the Companion, and Superior Prophet, to command that sustenance be taken from him in every store-city and every temple, without stinting therein.

Indeed, stories like these recall previous expedition endeavors to the region [Pwnt], and sure enough, various inscriptions or letters either by envoys and/or Pharaohs [responding to envoy-recounts of such expeditions] have been left to us—"the living"; apparently, these expeditions were, or at least seemed to be, a source of pride to the Kemetian authorities, not only given that the said expeditions were considered to be major sea-faring undertakings, which were often seen as risky [as we shall see below, in the 'inscriptional' example that Erman cites], but also largely preconceived as one of the few or rare occasions of peaceful projects in relatively distant exotic territories amongst the many which are otherwise generally accommodated by strategic military goals, to fend off Kemet's potential rivals, and as one which yielded substantial, and in certain ways, exceptional commercial gifts. The reproduced inscription below for instance, serves as an example of such retelling:

"Fig. 1. Stela of Khentykhetywer, recovered in the Wadi Gawasis, describing his return from Punt. The relevant portion of the text reads: '...after his return in safety from Punt, his expedition being with him, sound and healthy ., and his fleet resting at Sww...' (From A.M.A.H. Sayed, in Revue d' Égyptologie, XXIX [1977], 139, pl. VIII; translation of A. Nibbi, in [i]Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, LXII [1976], 50)"
Here's another perspective on the matter of the "dancing pygmies", as well as the issue of diversity mentioned earlier [notwithstanding questionable descriptions like "central African features"], from net...

"As more Egyptian expeditions were sent deeper into Nubia, other peoples began to appear in Egyptian art with more markedly central African features, hairstyles, and characteristics. That Egyptian explorers penetrated the Sudan to a great distance at this period is suggested by the contemporary carved ivory group, preserved in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, which was used as a child's toy. It represents three pygmy men, which could be made to dance when a string was pulled. To the Egyptians, these people were the "horizon dwellers", who were seen only once in many generations. They were famed among the Egyptians for their dancing, and when any of these people were brought to Egypt, they were made to perform "the dances of the gods." They would no doubt have come from the extreme reaches of the Upper Nile tributaries and the northern Congo area. -
Courtesy of nubianet.org

At least one site sought to explain the reason behind the dancing dwarfs being sought after by the Kemetian royalty:

The strange way in which Bes is represented has lead some scholars to think that Bes was of Mesopotamian or of African origin. The epithets "Lord of Punt" and "Lord of Nubia" also seem to point in that direction. On the other hand, Bes is known to the Egyptians from the Old Kingdom on, or before. There are . Bes may owe the epithet "Lord of Punt" to his dwarf-like figure: Punt, a legendary African society, was populated, among others, by pygmies.

There were two kinds of dwarfs known in ancient Egypt, the African pygmies and the Egyptian dwarfs. The African pygmies had hereditary dwarfism. These pygmies originated in the equatorial forests of Central Africa. The Ancient Egyptians brought them to Egypt from their trade stations in Nubia. The first pygmy was brought from Punt in the time of King Asosi of the Fifth Dynasty. Another was brought by Herkhuf from the land of Iam in Upper Nubia for the child King Pepi the Second.

The role of the African pygmies was to perform a dance called "the dance for god" or to dance in the royal palace to rejoice the king's heart.

The Egyptian dwarfs had a deformity in their bodies. A big head, a normal trunk, and short arms and legs characterized these dwarfs. These dwarfs were frequently placed in charge of pet animals. The Egyptian dwarfs also engaged in jewelry making.

Since the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, they served as attendants to their masters. The most famous Egyptian dwarf was Seneb, who lived during the Fifth Dynasty. He was a high official with many social, religious, and honorary titles. He was married to a normal-sized woman... Courtesy of eternalegypt.org, Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt.

The question of what would have been the territorial extent of 'Pwnt', even if one were to assume that 'Pwnt' were a state right off the bat, never seems to cross the minds of the aforementioned ideologues, who are just eager to promote their respective viewpoints, regardless of the weight of evidence. Apparently, "dancing dwarfs" have been brought in by expeditions to territories to Egypt's south and beyond Kush, including 'Pwnt', as noted above. Certainly pygmies are rare in the African Horn today, but they do occur in central Africa, which is right next to the Sudanese border. On the other hand, we hear about items like Teff, found in 4th Dynasty pyramids of Senefru for example,...

Abyssinian milliet, Teff [Eragotrs Tef Trotter], is cultivated for it's grain only on the Ethiopian High Plataeu.

Many plants resembling it are known locally as Teff; some of them are in addition cereals which are collected [eg. E pilosa P.B.].

Apart from the recent times, this cereal has not penetrated elsewhere. The present writer has shown that the term teff was not of Semetic origin but rather of ancient Egyptian origin. While the ancient Egyptians do not appear to have been familiar with the cultivation of Abyssinian Teff, they made use of Eragrostis pilosa in exactly the same as is done today in the valley of the Nile and North-East Africa [Barth 1858 and Kotschy 1862] Unger [1866-67] found grains of it in the pyramids of Dashur Pyramid [3359 B.C.] Fourth Dynasty and in the blocks of clay from the ancient town of Rameses [1400-1300 B.C.] built at the begining of the New Empire. As a name, Teff [tief] appears to come from 'provisions' food.

Source: Papers in African Prehistory ed. J. D. Fage and R. A. Oliver. Cambridge, page 53, 1970.

Such items suggest origins in the African Horn, as noted. Other popular items obtained from 'Pwnt' such as myrrh, gold, spices and ebony, are found in the general region of southern Sudan, Eritrea, and northern Ethiopia. As noted, carved ivory sculptures do occur and could have arrived from central Africa, bordering Sudan. The areas [particularly southwest of] near Port Sudan were known for gold. In that same area, including the general region where the borders of Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia meet, the short-horned and the humpless long-horned cattle types—shown on wall relief imagery of 'Pwnt'—were also located, while the western region of Eritrea [e.g. Erkowit area] and the Tigris plateau area were known for incense and myrrh [courtesy references of Dr. Karl H. Leser]. Apparently exotic animals [*some* of which are now relatively rare in region] like giraffes, various feline [like say, panthers], dogs, bears, monkeys [notably including the baboon], donkeys, elephants, rhinos and a variety of birds [including "stalk-like" types] were available that far north, in that same general area. One particular animal of interest, i.e. the single-horned rhino, has been pointed to by the ideological camp of a "non-African Pwnt" to suggest that it serves as evidence of—well, a non-African based 'Pwnt'. However, it simply suggests, at the least, that a part of 'Pwnt' was not too far from the Red Sea; this still falls short of telling us the actual geographical extent of 'Pwnt'. Almost all other animals depicted are largely common tropical African exotic types; the same applies to the flora, as exemplified by the "palm-tree like" plants and the myrrh trees of 'Pwnt'. Word is that even the examination of the marine fauna depicted in 'Pwnt' imagery, though in some cases hard to relate them to highly-*specific* existing [subspecies] variants, all appear to be of tropical or subtropical water-body types; they have been related to general species types—see below:






Above, are examples of some of the fauna & flora mentioned, including the evident marine fauna. Click on this last image to see the "short-horned" humpless cattle type [also take note of the aforementioned dome-topped dwellings—shown on the 2nd top colored image of this page as well—on piles].

Below, is a colored photo of a wall relief at Luxor displaying wild animals from the "Land of Punt" being escorted by workers, who may or may not [or both situations apply] have come from 'Pwnt' along with the animals. Myrrh trees typical of 'Pwnt' imagery can be also seen in the image:


This tomb is in the valley of the nobles. It is a typical tomb of the 18th dynasty, with a vestbule and chapel. the paintings are very interesting with painting of different animals brought from the land of Punt. There are paintings of monkeys, bears, horses ,elephants and giraffe. There is also scenes of men working on a huge statue of a pharaoh. This is another tomb to include in your list - Courtesy of vtourist.com

Noticeable above, is the variety in the garment of the workers. Looking at the garment of workers in other 'Pwnt' scenery, we have...


Note the short white loincloth garment in proportion to the single strap of linen draped from the waist over the genital area. Certain group of workers uniformly sported these short with garments. Contrast this with the variety displayed above. Click on image to see an enlarged version taken from another angle.


Again, notice the style of the garment. Not different from the examples immediately above. Now, contrast the type with those worn by the bearded "Pwnt" workers.


Even amongst these bearded workers, there are variations in garment. There are garments with the two-pronged linen strip hanging from the waist over the genital area, wherein said strip is partially hidden under the kilt, and then there is the garment type with a single-pronged linen strip draped from the waist over the genital area, wherein again said strip is partially hidden from view underneath the kilt; figures wearing these aforementioned garment types are accompanied by other workers who are not necessarily bearded, and characterized by garments with a two-pronged linen strip draped from the waist over the genital area, which in this case is fully visible on the skirt. Click on the image for hi resolution.

Perhaps one aspect of 'Pwnt' occupants that should not be overlook before we come to a close in the "political and geographical" questions surrounding 'Pwnt', is the range of skin tones displayed, which generally parallel those in the lower Nile Valley regions all the way from Kush to Kemet. The dark reddish-brown tinge of skin tones displayed by the bearded 'Pwnt' workers, including the aforementioned chief and queen, parallel the conventions applied to Kemetic figures. This generally contrasts most Aamu ["Western" scholars generally know them as "Asiatics"] who are more often than not, depicted in Yellowish pigmentation as opposed to the dark reddish-brown.

Some interesting figures appear on the scenery, such as those of troops accompanied by the Egyptian expedition crew. Recalling one of the images already posted, we have [this is the photograph version]:

An envoy, allegedly by the name of "Nehesj", backed up with a troop. So goes the saying: Better safe than never!

The garments that the troops are shown wearing, is somewhat stylistically distinct from the conventional plain white loincloth garments usually associated with regular Egyptian personalities. Obviously as seen here, the body postures of the soldiers are suggestive of the group coming in peace. Elsewhere, this occasion has been interpreted as that of the soldiers coming along to "promote a one-sided trade", wherein Egyptian weaponry was presented as part of the trade items, with beads being the other, in exchange for the more elaborate variety of 'Pwnt'. Click on the image above, to see another version of troops, but this time, in marching body postures; the stance still seems to be that of a peaceful one.

Adolf Erman's interpretation—of the coming along of the soldiers in an 11th Dynasty expedition to 'Pwnt'—follows that of the protection of the expedition crew from potential enemies along the journey route, and he purportedly supports this by citing an inscription allegedly by chief treasurer Henu under Senekhkere-Mentuhotep III during the 11th Dynasty:


Click on the image for hi resolution.

Erman's description of 'Pwnt' was less than flattering, if not with an element of disdain; he presents 'Pwnt', which he does not regard as a name for a nation state but as a general descriptive for a region, as being exagguratingly admired and ascended to a legendary status primarily due to the products that it endowed Kemetians with, certain aspects of which were apparently relatively rare in Kemet, but that in reality, the people of 'Pwnt' were not all that much respected by Kemetians; rather, as he suggests, the locals of 'Pwnt' were seen as being less cultured than the Kemetians themselves; see below:


Click on the image for hi resolution.

Erman's disdain for Queen Ety is particularly noticeable. Her chubby appearance has been commented on; some discussants see this feature of the queen as yet another indicator of the African situation of 'Pwnt'. Certainly some members of the aforementioned ideological camps, i.e. those who argue for some African Horn country or the other, are inclined to argue that it is not uncommon to see male appeal for women "on the heavy side" in that region; though, it is questionable whether these are not appeals for "medically healthier" situations, or at least perceived as such by the eyes of the beholders, as opposed to appeal for females who are "heavy" because of medical adversity. Many observers see Queen Ety's weight issue as more of a mal medical condition. At any rate, even Erman tacitly interprets the situation as further indication of Pwnt's location in Africa. One thing that Erman mentions that shouldn't be overlooked, is the idea that donkeys were employed as the main "beasts of burden or for riding". Indeed, as another source put it, we have:

"In order to transport the material to build their ships, donkey were used, as camels were not available until after the invasion of the Persians much later:

To every man I gave his rations, a water-bottle, a staff, two jars of water, twenty loaves of bread. The donkeys carried the jars. When one of them tired, another was substituted. I excavated twelve holes in the wadi, two holes at Idahet, twenty cubits wide and thirty deep. One hole at Idahet ten cubits in every direction, at a place where water sprang.

Courtesy of touregypt.net

The keywords here being "camels were not available"; whereas in the Arabian peninsula, right across the Red Sea, one would expect camels as a beast of burden to have been around by then.

Images of Queen Ety, in the company of her husband Chief Perehu (Prhw); these have been displayed in repros already posted, but here is another variant:

Click on the image to see the color blown-up of the piece pasted in the repro above.

The chief Perehu (Parahu) is described as wearing a skull cap on his head, in a manner similar to some Egyptian deities, like Ptah in particular. Otherwise, like the bearded 'Pwnt' workers, he sports a goatee [which in Egyptian renditions is usually reserved for deities or divine personalities], and the loincloth garment sporting a partially-visible two-pronged linen strip over the genital area. The mentioning of chief Perehu and his queen could invoke a sense of a centralized polity in the Pwnt that Hatshepsut sent her treasurer. However, it is of note that Jack Phillip in one of his repros, mentions the "two" chiefs of 'Pwnt' [image below]; Erman, in the extract immediately prior to his last one above, also speaks of princes and chiefs in plural tense. Whether this implies that there were several other chiefs identified with 'Pwnt', or else that these were lesser chiefs of a hierarchically higher central one, is something that remains to be sorted out. Even so, while the idea of one supreme ruler of the land may serve as an indicator of a centralized polity, it doesn't tell us the geographical extent of 'Pwnt's' political borders at any given time.



As perhaps further indication of its geographical proximity translating into its localization on the African continent, we are told about another inscription that implicates 'Pwnt', but this time, not as an element of legendary admiration or as allies, but rather, as an adversarial element to the state of Kemet; we get this picture in an article by Dalya Alberge, in the article headed "Tomb reveals Ancient Egypt's humiliating secret"...

The tomb belonged to Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, an important provincial capital during the latter part of the 17th Dynasty (about 1575-1550BC). The inscription describes a ferocious invasion of Egypt by armies from Kush and its allies from the south, including the land of Punt, on the southern coast of the Red Sea. It says that vast territories were affected and describes Sobeknakht's heroic role in organising a counter-attack.

The text takes the form of an address to the living by Sobeknakht: "
Listen you, who are alive upon earth . . . Kush came . . . aroused along his length, he having stirred up the tribes of Wawat . . . the land of Punt and the Medjaw. . ." It describes the decisive role played by the "might of the great one, Nekhbet", the vulture-goddess of El Kab, as "strong of heart against the Nubians, who were burnt through fire", while the "chief of the nomads fell through the blast of her flame".

The discovery explains why Egyptian treasures, including statues, stelae and an elegant alabaster vessel found in the royal tomb at Kerma, were buried in Kushite tombs: they were war trophies
.

The grammar of the inscription piece, as translated above, clearly presents the "land of Punt" amongst entities that represent an ethnic group and inhabitants of a designated locale that doesn't necessarily represent a nation state; namely, the Medjay and the tribes of Wawat respectively. Although from the looks of it, in that pieces of the text seem to be missing and thus, possibly warranting further examination, the cotexts of the "land of Punt" suggest that it is more likely placed within the context of the latter camp—that is to say, inhabitants of a designated broad or general locale that need not be a centralized state. Like the "tribes of Wawat", it is associated with a designated region or locale, while Medjay as cited, is invoked without a specified territory, which would implicate them as either nomadic types or as a geographically scattered group across territories of multiple polities. In other words, neither of the three named groups here appear to be players of a centralized state, but rather, are implicated as an ethnic group or inhabitants of a designated generalized region who have allied with Kushitic state; Kush is the only other entity that is unequivocally presented grammatically as a state player; that is, acting on behalf of a centralized polity. A curious feature about hieroglyphic invocations of the appellative "Pwnt" (Punt), is that they are generally accompanied by the determinative for "land", at least as demonstrated by the different occasions that have been implicated in this blog post, rather than the glyph of a 'circle enclosing a cross', i.e. "pwntcopyyu3.jpg"[often verbalized as "nwt", where verbalization is warranted] , usually synonymous with a polity or a nation.

At any rate, the extract serves as further indication that the "land of Punt" is within geographical proximity to Kush, such that they would conveniently forge political ties and create a unified military front to confront a common foe, which in this case, was the state of Kemet. If the Kushites had to cross the Red Sea, in order to get to the other side only to seek allies, then that undertaking would have involved more work and time consuming. In other words, the indicators point to the African localization of "Pwnt". In light of this adversarial relationship between Kush and Kemet at this particular point in time [since they are known to have more friendly relations in other occasions], from the web, at least one site gathered that,...

The historical frequency of commercial contacts and also the way how the Egyptians had reached Punt indicate - as stated by Fattovich - that it must be located on an area southeast from Nubia. A historical comparison of the contacts lets assume therefore:

- that in the Old Kingdom the goods from Punt had been brought to Egypt on an overland route, whereby this was controlled by the people from Kerma;

- that in the Middle Kingdom the sea route was preferred to travel to Punt, in order to evade the area of Kerma (however, this does not exclude additional contacts on an overland route);

- that in the 2. intermediate period the trade with Punt was controlled by nomads of the eastern desert who for their part had contact with the Kerma culture;


- that in the New Kingdom again ships were sent to Punt, until Nubia was fully controlled by Egypt; thereafter, the goods came also on an overland route, whereby the trade was controlled by nomads of the eastern desert; probably at the same time the trade with the west coast of the Arabian peninsula was started;


- that the contact during the 20. Dynasty was stopped due to climatic changes and resulting political weakness of Egypt;


- that thereafter until Ptolemaic times the trade with Punt and the southern areas of the Red Sea had been under control of people from Arabia, thus, Punt became a mythological idea.


All hints support a localization of Punt in the area at the border between Ethiopia and Sudan


Source: Courtesy of www.maat-ka-ra.de

The Mythical or Spiritual aspect...

'Pwnt' ascended to a legendary status at some point in time, and it is here one comes across mythical themes centered on the region. One good example of this can perhaps be seen in the tale of The Shipwrecked Sailor [ca. 2200 BC] , as found elsewhere on the net:

The wise servant said, "Let thy heart be satisfied, O my lord, for that we have come back to the country; after we have been long on board, and rowed much, the prow has at last touched land. All the people rejoice and embrace us one after another. Moreover, we have come back in good health, and not a man is lacking; although we have been to the ends of Wawat [Nubia], and gone through the land of Senmut [Kush], we have returned in peace, and our land---behold, we have come back to it. Hear me, my lord; I have no other refuge. Wash thee, and turn the water over thy fingers; then go and tell the tale to the majesty."

His lord replied, "Thy heart continues still its wandering words!
but although the mouth of a man may save him his words may also cover his face with confusion. Will you do then as your heart moves you? This that you will say, tell quietly."

The sailor then answered, "Now I shall tell that which has happened to me, to my very self. I was going to the mines of Pharaoh, and 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. They had said that the wind would not be contrary, or that there would be none. But as we approached the land, the wind arose, and threw up waves eight cubits high. As for me, I seized a piece of wood; but those who were in the vessel perished, without one remaining. A wave threw me on an island, after that I had been three days alone, without a companion beside my own heart. I laid me in a thicket, and the shadow covered me. Then stretched I my limbs to try to find something for my mouth. I found there figs and grain, melons of all kinds, fishes, and birds. Nothing was lacking. And I satisfied myself; and left on the ground that which was over, of what my arms had been filled withal. I dug a pit, I lighted a fire, and I made a burnt offering unto the gods.

"Suddenly I heard a noise as of thunder, which I thought to be that of a wave of the sea. The trees shook, and the earth was moved. I uncovered my face, and I saw that a serpent drew near. He was thirty cubits long, and his beard greater than two cubits; his body was as overlaid with gold, and his color as that of true lazuli. He coiled himself before me. Then he opened his mouth, while that I lay on my face before him, and he said to me, 'What has brought you, what has brought you, little one, what has brought you? If you say not speedily what has brought you to this isle, I will make you know yourself; as a flame you shall vanish, if you tell me not something I have not heard, or which I knew not, before you.'

"Then he took me in his mouth and carried me to his resting-place, and laid me down without any hurt. I was whole and sound, and nothing was gone from me. Then he opened his mouth against me, while that I lay on my face before him, and he said, 'What has brought you, what has brought you, little one, what has brought you to this isle which is in the sea, and of which the shores are in the midst of the waves?'

"Then I replied to him, and holding my arms low before him, I said to him: 'I was embarked for the mines by the order of the majesty, in a ship, one hundred and fifty cubits was its length, and the width of it forty cubits. It had one hundred and fifty sailors of the best of Egypt, who had seen heaven and earth, and the hearts of whom were stronger than lions. They said that the wind would not be contrary, or that there would be none. Each of them exceeded his companion in the prudence of his heart and the strength of his arm, and I was not beneath any of them. A storm came upon us while we were on the sea. Hardly could we reach to the shore when the wind waxed yet greater, and the waves rose even eight cubits. As for me, I seized a piece of wood, while those who were in the boat perished without one being left with me for three days. Behold me now before you, for I was brought to this isle by a wave of the sea.'

"Then said he to me, 'Fear not, fear not, little one, and make not your face sad. If you have come to me, it is God who has let you live. For it is He who has brought you to this isle of the blest, where nothing is lacking, and which is filled with all good things. See now, you shall pass one month after another, until you shall be four months in this isle. Then a ship shall come from your land with sailors, and you shall leave with them and go to your country, and you shall die in your town.

Converse is pleasing, and he who tastes of it passes over his misery. I will therefore tell you of that which is in this isle
. I am here with my brethren and my children around me; we are seventy-five serpents, children, and kindred; without naming a young girl who was brought unto me by chance, and on whom the fire of heaven fell, and burned her to ashes. As for you, if you are strong, and if your heart waits patiently, you shall press your infants to your bosom and embrace your wife. You shall return to your house which is full of all good things, you shall see your land, where you shall dwell in the midst of your kindred.'

"Then I bowed in my obeisance, and I touched the ground before him. 'Behold now that which I have told you before. I shall tell of your presence unto Pharaoh, I shall make him to know of your greatness, and I will bring to you of the sacred oils and perfumes, and of incense of the temples with which all gods are honored. I shall tell, moreover, of that which I do now see (thanks to him), and there shall be rendered to you praises before the fullness of all the land. I shall slay asses for you in sacrifice, I shall pluck for you the birds, and I shall bring for you ships full of all kinds of the treasures of Egypt, as is comely to do unto a god, a friend of men in a far country, of which men know not.'

"Then he smiled at my speech, because of that which was in his heart, for he said to me: 'You are not rich in perfumes, for all that you have is but common incense. As for me, I am prince of the land of Punt, and I have perfumes. Only the oil which you say you would bring is not common in this isle. But, when you shall depart from this place, you shall never more see this isle; it shall be changed into waves.'

"And behold, when the ship drew near, according to all that he had told me before, I got up into an high tree, to strive to see those who were within it. Then I came and told to him this matter, but it was already known unto him before. Then he said to me: 'Farewell, farewell, go to your house, little one, see again your children, and let your name be good in your town; these are my wishes for you.'

"Then I bowed myself before him, and held my arms low before him, and he, he gave me gifts of precious perfumes, of cassia, of sweet woods, of kohl, of cypress, an abundance of incense, of ivory tusks, of baboons, of apes, and all kinds of precious things. I embarked all in the ship which was come, and bowing myself, I prayed God for him. Then he said to me: 'Behold you shall come to your country in two months, you shall press to your bosom your children, and you shall rest in your tomb.'

After this I went down to the shore unto the ship, and I called to the sailors who were there. Then on the shore I rendered adoration to the master of this isle and to those who dwelt therein.

When we shall come, in our return, to the house of Pharaoh, in the second month, according to all that the serpent has said, we shall approach unto the palace. And I shall go in before Pharaoh, I shall bring the gifts which I have brought from this isle into the country. Then he shall thank me before the fullness of the land. Grant then unto me a follower, and lead me to the courtiers of the king. Cast your eye upon me after that I have both seen and proved this. Hear my prayer, for it is good to listen to people. It was said unto me: 'Become a wise man, and you shall come to honor,' and behold I have become such."

This is finished from its beginning unto its end, even as it was found in a writing. It is written by the scribe of cunning fingers, Ameni-amenaa; may he live in life, wealth, and health!


Courtesy of this Link [click here], that provides additional references in an attempt to simply the language.

It is of note that the narrator of the story repeats the theme of having gone first through Wawat and Kush before landing in the land of Punt, which is not inconsistent with what we've seen with regards to the alliance forged between Wawat, Kush, and the Land of Punt in the excerpt above, as mentioned in the inscription found in the tomb of Sobeknakht, Governor of El-Kab, since they each relate the proximity of 'Pwnt' to these other two regional entities. Here too, we come across exotic animals already described above. All that aside, one noticeable mention here, is that of the Serpent prince of 'Pwnt'. Several discussants have pointed to this as another supposed evidence of its location in the African Horn, presumably predicated on the account that serpent worship traditions occurred in that region. However, servent reverance, deification or worship has been seen in a number of parts of the world, including ancient Egypt itself. The narrative around this Serpent prince of Pwnt has taken mythic proportions; for one, it is purported to be a gaint talking one. An interesting feature of the Serpent ruler, is that he was also "bearded" or sported the goatee type that recurringly appears in occupants of 'Pwnt' imagery. These resemble the false beards [or rather, goatees] generally associated with Kemetian Neteru figures, including as an item of symbolism on artistic renditions of pharoahs, who were deemed to be "divine" mortal rulers of the land. While it's possible that the people of 'Pwnt' were generally unshaven characters, the recurring theme, even on a mythified personality such as the sailor's Serpent ruler/prince of 'Pwnt', suggests that it is more likely that this is more a product of ascension of 'Pwnt' to semi-mythical porportions; returning to Adolf Erman, he provides an interesting prespective on what might have precipitated this level of admiration for 'Pwnt', wherein he implicates the relative abundance of goods, that the Kemetians deemed "precious", in the "Land of Punt" as partly responsible for this phenomenon, and indeed, the sailor does mention some of these purported "precious" goods or items, and talks about taking them with him to Kemet; recall for instance, from the story, the following:

Utterance by the Serpent prince of "Pwnt"...

"Then said he to me, 'Fear not, fear not, little one, and make not your face sad. If you have come to me, it is God who has let you live. For it is He who has brought you to this isle of the blest, where nothing is lacking, and which is filled with all good things. See now, you shall pass one month after another, until you shall be four months in this isle. Then a ship shall come from your land with sailors, and you shall leave with them and go to your country, and you shall die in your town.

And the sailor's interaction with the Serpent prince...

"Then I bowed myself before him, and held my arms low before him, and he, he gave me gifts of precious perfumes, of cassia, of sweet woods, of kohl, of cypress, an abundance of incense, of ivory tusks, of baboons, of apes, and all kinds of precious things. I embarked all in the ship which was come, and bowing myself, I prayed God for him. Then he said to me: 'Behold you shall come to your country in two months, you shall press to your bosom your children, and you shall rest in your tomb.'

Now, a look at how Adolf Erman builds the aforementioned case, as noted immediately above; in the process, it may be too tempting not to compare Erman's version of the translations with that provided above about the 'The Shipwrecked Sailor', to see if there are no translatory variations. Recalling an earlier posted Erman's piece, we have [with emphasis on the last sentence of the second paragraph and from thereon]:

Click on the image for hi resolution.

He goes onto reiterate this feeling of admiration for things "Pwnt" on pg 511 that is already posted above [the last Erman piece posted prior to this], and the corresponding semi-mythification of that region, but then turns around and speaks of how Kemetians did not see "Puntites" as their equals, in that the latter were perceived as the lesser cultured ones.

The following pages, 508 to 511, recount the same story about the shipwrecked sailor as that already provided above, but also taking into account why Erman says it has that mythical character just talked about...

Click on the image for hi resolution.

Click on the image for hi resolution.

Click on the image for hi resolution.

Click on the image for hi resolution.

Aside from the extraordinary claims about the "bearded" Serpent talking to the author, who was presumably a victim of a shipwreck, the tale also talks of this taking place on an isle or island. Is this simply the product of mistranslation? If not, then should that too not be taken literally? Certainly, the African Horn is the furthest thing from an island. A case could be made that the sailor had experienced moments of hallucination while being stranded alone near the shores of a land foreign to him, before a ship came to his rescue and helped him return to his country and/or else he decided to be a little "creative" about retelling circumstances of his sea-fairing journey, in an effort to not disappoint fellow-Kemetian audiences when recounting his experiences on this exotic land of 'Punt', knowing fully well that back in his homeland, that the average person had this 'semi-mythical' preconceived-notion of the "land of Punt". Against that backdrop, staying true to the series of events of one's experiences as they *actually* happened in an exotic land that was otherwise supposed to have this air of a semi "larger-than-life-as-usual" persona to it, would be seen as "life-as-usual", if not boring and unworthy of special attention; but such are the plausible options of motives behind the character of this storytelling, given the mythical aspects of the sailor's recounts.

As always, aspects of this post too will be continuously built on. Watch this space for updates.