...
EgyptSearch Forums Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Tomb reveals Ancient Egypt?s humiliating secret » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
ausar
Member # 1797
 - posted
Tomb reveals Ancient Egypt?s humiliating secret
By Dalya Alberge
Our correspondent reports on how details of crushing defeat by another Nile superpower were kept hidden
ANCIENT Egyptians ?airbrushed? out of history one of their most humiliating defeats in battle, academics believe. In what the British Museum described as the discovery of a lifetime, a 3,500-year-old inscription shows that the Sudanese kingdom of Kush came close to destroying its northern neighbour.

The revelation is contained in 22 lines of sophisticated hieroglyphics deciphered by Egyptologists from the British Museum and Egypt after their discovery in February in a richly decorated tomb at El Kab, near Thebes, in Upper Egypt.

Vivian Davies, Keeper of the museum?s Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, said: ?In many ways this is the discovery of a lifetime, one that changes the textbooks. We?re absolutely staggered by it.?

The inscription details previously unknown important battles unprecedented ?since the time of the god? ? the beginning of time. Experts now believe that the humiliation of defeat was one that the Ancient Egyptians preferred to omit from their historical accounts.

Contemporary Egyptian descriptions had led historians to assume that the kingdom of Kush was a weak and barbaric neighbouring state for hundreds of years, although it boasted a complex society with vast resources of gold dominating the principal trade routes into the heart of Africa. It did eventually conquer Egypt, in the 8th century BC.

Mr Davies, who headed the joint British Museum and Egyptian archaeological team, said: ?Now it is clear that Kush was a superpower which had the capacity to invade Egypt. It was a huge invasion, one that stirred up the entire region, a momentous event that is previously undocumented.

?They swept over the mountains, over the Nile, without limit. This is the first time we?ve got evidence. Far from Egypt being the supreme power of the Nile Valley, clearly Kush was at that time.

?Had they stayed to occupy Egypt, the Kushites might have eliminated it. That?s how close Egypt came to extinction. But the Egyptians were resilient enough to survive, and shortly afterwards inaugurated the great imperial age known as the New Kingdom. The Kushites weren?t interested in occupation. They went raiding for precious objects, a symbol of domination. They did a lot of damage.?

The inscription was found between two internal chambers in a rock-cut tomb that was covered in soot and dirt. It appeared gradually as the grime was removed.

Mr Davies said: ?I thought it would be a religious text, but it turned out to be historical. Gradually, a real narrative emerged, a brand new text inscribed in red paint, reading from right to left.?

The tomb belonged to Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, an important provincial capital during the latter part of the 17th Dynasty (about 1575-1550BC).

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.

Mr Davies said: ?That has never been properly explained before. Now it makes sense. It?s the key that unlocks the information. Now we know they were looted trophies, symbols of these kings? power over the Egyptians. Each of the four main kings of Kush brought back looted treasures.?

Page 1

Page 2
The alabaster vessel is contemporary with the latter part of the 17th Dynasty. It bears a funerary text ?for the spirit of the Governor, Hereditary Prince of Nekheb, Sobek- nakht?. Now it is clear that it was looted from Sobeknakht?s tomb, or an associated workshop, by the Kushite forces and taken back to Kerma, where it was buried in the precincts of the tomb of the Kushite king who had led or inspired the invasion.

The El Kab tomb was looted long ago, probably in antiquity. There is more to investigate at the enormous site and the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt is now making such work a priority.

Rich pickings from ebony and ivory

Kush was a vast territory spanning modern-day northern Sudan. Ruled by kings who were buried with large quantities of luxury goods, including jewellery and inlaid furniture, it had complex political and religious institutions.

The economy was based on trading in ivory, ebony and incense, as well as slaves. Its skilled craftsmen left behind some of the finest ceramics produced in the ancient world.

The independent kingdom of Kush arose during the 8th century BC. The native kings laid claim to the Egyptian throne, declaring themselves the true heirs of Thutmose III and other great pharaonic ancestors. Under the leadership of King Piye (c747-716BC), they conquered Egypt, ruling as its 25th Dynasty.

The reign of King Taharqo (690-664BC) was a high point of the Kushite empire. He erected imposing temples, shrines and statues throughout the Nile Valley. His pyramid, the largest of the Kushite examples, soared to more than 48m (160ft).

Over 4,000 years interaction between the empires was inevitable. While they had different funerary practices at the time of the El Kab inscription ? the Egyptians had tombs and pyramids while the Kushites preferred tumuli (grave mounds) ? the Kushites went on to build pyramids and mummify their dead.

In return, the Egyptians were particularly influenced by Kushite jewellery design.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,4484-760013,00.html



[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 26 June 2005).]
 

Djehuti
Member # 6698
 - posted
Great post Ausar!

It puts a big dent on that silly old notion that the Egyptians were so racially superior to their southern neighbors, that they always dominated them and the Nile Valley. The fact is that the Nubians, especially the Kushites, were truly Egypt's arche-rival and not some submissive easily conquered weakling!!

Ausar, I have heard about this historical find and to be honest I am really not that surprised by it. We know that since the beginning of Egyptian unification, Aswan and other outlying areas around the First Catact were used by the Egyptians as a military bufferzone. If the Egyptians were such the dominant aggressors, then why such precautions? It is obvious the Egyptians feared Nubia's power and considered certain people a formidable threat to the whole state of Egypt.

I wonder what Amnesiac AMR will say about all this, since this info dispells his false beliefs in easily conquered Nubians.

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 26 June 2005).]
 

Israel
Member # 11221
 - posted
Hey Ausar,

where did you find this post? I need to get a copy of it! This is great!
 
ray2006
Member # 10891
 - posted
Hello-can anyone pinpoint me to the ORIGINAL HIEROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONS..?

The cited inscription in the article is not that very clear...

It mentions the land of PUNT- could it have been Yemen ? From the article it does not sound like Ethiopia...
ryb
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
The thing you have to remember is that ancient Egypt was a child of the kingdoms to the South. It should be remembered that ALL of Egypts greatest traditions of kingship and political organization came from the south. The strength that overthrew foreign invaders , came from the South. The fiercest resistence to foreign occupation in the late periods, came from the South. Only because of the distortion in modern scholarship did the idea that people to the south were WEAK and subjects of Egypt become prevalent.
 
Hikuptah
Member # 11131
 - posted
Ausar i always had a feeling that something was missing about Kush thanks for the information ths is great. I also have one more question Ausar is Medjaw the Beja.
 
Djehuti
Member # 6698
 - posted
^^ [Embarrassed] Of course it's only natural to get that feeling of something "missing" about Nubia after all the BS Egyptologists have put out there about it!

Notice that when this story first came out last year, there was no news or anything mentioned about this discovery not in TV or radio, no attention at all in the public! In fact, the only place I've heard of it was in this board, when Ausar first presented it and even then it still did not get any of the attention it deserved! I was the only one who responded to the thread (and read the date of my response)!!

Hiku, it is the common belief that the Beja ARE the descendants of the Medjay. The Beja live in the exact same areas as the Medjay territories (Read Sea hills east of the Nile Valley) and there has been no evidence to the contrary.
 
Supercar
Member # 6477
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
when Ausar first presented it and even then it still did not get any of the attention it deserved! I was the only one who responded to the thread (and read the date of my response)!!

Lol. That was because at about the same time it was posted, a duplicate topic was posted in the Nile Valley forum, where others had responded.
 
Djehuti
Member # 6698
 - posted
^LOL [Big Grin] I missed you guys!
 
PEPI
Member # 11128
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Great post Ausar!


Ausar, I have heard about this historical find and to be honest I am really not that surprised by it. We know that since the beginning of Egyptian unification, Aswan and other outlying areas around the First Catact were used by the Egyptians as a military bufferzone. If the Egyptians were such the dominant aggressors, then why such precautions? It is obvious the Egyptians feared Nubia's power and considered certain people a formidable threat to the whole state of Egypt.


you take the words out my mouth, racist egyptologist won`t be happy with this
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
The Medjay were the fierce warriors who helped expel
the usurpers of the second intermediate period. The people of Wawat and Yam were also peoples who helped Egypt militarily at various points, especially in helping overthrow foreign invaders. The Kushites, were people from central Sudan who we all know as the "Nubians" who ruled Egypt in the late period after kicking out the Libyan dynasties.

Here is some info about how these southerners were the backbone of Egypt's army for much of the dynastic period. Therefore, if they were so STRONG and EFFECTIVE that the Egyptians found it necessary to make them a central part of the Army, especially in times of trouble, then it is OBVIOUS that the Egyptian military was no match for them if they ever decided to rise up and invade them. The fact that this DID NOT happen is as important as the fact that the evidence in this find shows that they ALMOST and COULD HAVE done it, but for some reason decided NOT to. In my opinion, this speaks VOLUMES about the relationship between Egypt and its southern neighbors, especially when contrasted to the behaviors of peoples to the north and west, who ALWAYS took advantage of Egypt's weakness to invade and take power.

The following links also describe more about these people in Egypt's military:

quote:

From the Old Kingdom on foreigners were incorporated into the army. The Egyptians possibly even signed contracts with foreign potentates to insure the supply of mercenaries. Weni who lived during the 6th dynasty wrote

When his majesty took action against the Asiatic sand-dwellers, his majesty made an army of many tens of thousands from all of Upper Egypt: ...; from Lower Egypt: ...; and from Irtjet-Nubians, Medja-Nubians, Yam-Nubians, Wawat-Nubians, Kaau-Nubians; and from Tjemeh-land."

From: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/army.htm

But note how they APPEND the term Nubian to these names, when in the original heiroglyphics, no such appendage is to be found. The reason for this becomes clear when one reads the link listed after that quoted section of the papyrus of Weni:

quote:

His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands; in the entire South, southward to Elephantine, and northward to Aphroditopolis; in the Northland on both sides entire in the [stronghold], and in the midst of the [strongholds], among the Irthet negroes, the Mazoi negroes, the Yam negroes, among the Wawat negroes, among the Kau negroes, and in the land of Temeh.

From: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/weni.htm

This "Nubian" appendage has everything to do with making a racial distinction between people to the south of Egypt and Egypt proper, which is erroneous and a distortion because "Negro" or "Nubian" was NOT used by the Egyptians in the original heiroglyph. This is just the modern Egyptologist INSERTING their own personal biases into the picture, in order to reinforce this fantasy of the Egyptians being far superior militarily and culturally to their southern neighbors and DOWNPLAYING the fact that these southern "blacks" were a CRITICAL factor in Egypt's military sucess throughout the dynastic period as well as NOT ethically or racially that DIFFERENT from the Egyptians themselves. Another example why I dont use the word "Nubians" to refer to the people to the South of Egypt during the dynastic period.
 
Hikuptah
Member # 11131
 - posted
U are completely right about that Doug its all Racial bigotry u know that the Egyptians never called the southern people Negroes this is a western invention im glad that u guys are so up on your stuff so many people are not.
 
Djehuti
Member # 6698
 - posted
^Early 20th century Egyptologist James Henry Breasted was the one who translated the original Egyptian word Nehesi to "negro" when the word really meant peoples south of Egypt in general. It was never a racial word nor a reference to racial features like skin color. Ironically Breasted and his peers never touched on the true meaning of the name the Egyptians actually called themselves-- Kemau, meaning black people!
 
Rowan31
Member # 10333
 - posted
GREAT INFO! I really enjoyed learning the simple truth about things like this. Wonder how many other "treasures" are war trophies, especially now that we are in war times again ... still ... yet ...
 
Djehuti
Member # 6698
 - posted
The important thing is to dispell the huge misconception that Egypt was always powerful while 'Nubia' was always weak and an easy picking for Egypt. Of course such a view was only concieved because of 'Nubia' being labelled as a "black civilization" while Egypt was not. So as part of the Eurocentric discourse, if it was not white, it must be depreciated in some way. As if Egypt was white. Besides, we all know about the "Nubia" ruse. Nubia was a name for a region and not a single people or kingdom. 'Nubia' was a term that the Egyptians never used and thus never really existed except in the minds of Eurocentrics where Nubia = Negroe and thus the poor inferior other whom kacaziod Egypt supposedly beats up. [Wink]
 
Lazar
Member # 10869
 - posted
They:

Kemet (Egypt); Phoenicians; Caanan; Sumer; Indus Valley and Kush were all nations of "people of color".

Your link is no longer valid. I found this one more plausible: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/article10.html

I accept the fact that Egypt was the young child of Kush {and the older daughter of Ethiopia} upon until about 3500BC when Egypt stood erect and took off running!

Where are Dr. Cheik Anta Diop and Dr. Theophile Obenga when I need them to refute or substantiate this Eurocentric crap!
 
Willing Thinker {What Box}
Member # 10819
 - posted
Whoa.

I just noticed.. this was posted in 2005[?]!
 
Djehuti
Member # 6698
 - posted
^ But as old as the news is, it is still significant in our understanding of Egyptian history in part and Nile Valley history as a whole.
 



Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3