Trent+McRae

Because Ancient Nubia (Sudan) and Ancient Egypt share a symbiotic relationship throughout history, it has been hard to pinpoint where Egypt ends and Nubia begins. That truth withstanding there have been times in both Egypt and Nubia’s histories that the traditions, symbols and architecture become distinct enough to carry separate meanings. Touching lightly on other periods but focusing mainly on the Kerma/Kush/Meroe periods of Nubian history, I will expound on those differences in material culture/tradition and illustrate the similar, yet beautiful cultural diversity that existed in the southern most parts of the Nile Valley. At the same time taking particular care to respect the historic difficulties encountered in defining two often times similar cultures. This will further combat the conjecture that Nubian culture is Egyptian imitation, as O.G.S. Crawford in the journal ‘Antiquity’ puts “Sudanese do not need to be told that there is such a thing as Sudanese distinct from Egyptian archeology, … to many other his is a new idea” (Crawford 1948) **Pre-history** To better understand how Nubian culture is a close but separate Nile Valley civilization, an understanding of its pre-history is imperative. Even within its pre-history signs of similarities (between Egypt and Nubia) and problems identifying differences begin to show themselves. Around 3800 BC the first “Nubian” culture archaeologists term “A-Group” arises, this rise coincides with the ethnically and materially similar pre-dynastic “Naqadan” culture in Upper Egypt. This similarity between the A-Group and the Naqadan may signify that both arose out of the same parent polity (Weiner 1998). Later in the archaeological record an early Egypt/Nubia connection is even more apparent. “Around 3300 BC, there is evidence of a unified kingdom, as shown by the finds at Qustul, that maintained substantial interactions (both cultural and genetic) with the culture of Naqadan Upper Egypt, and may have even contributed to the unification of the Nile valley, and very likely contributed some pharaonic iconography, such as the white crown and serekh, later to be used by the famous Egyptian pharaohs” (Williams 1987) With early Egypt and Nubia sharing so much, it is easy to see how navigating the differences would be difficult, but even at its infancy stage Nubia begins to make these differences apparent by showing southern influences not present in early Egyptian material culture “A-Group material culture can be seen to have much in common with that found further south. Ceramic culture shares the same black –topped red polished wares, abundant rippled decoration as well as impressed designs, encountered as far south as Khartoum” (Williams 1986) “However, rather similar pottery is now being found in the Kerma area, raising the possibility that it may have a more widespread distribution further south. (Edwards 2004) As Nubian culture enters historic times the region gives rise to a culture known as “C-group”. C-group was first excavated in lower (Northern) Nubia by archaeologist/Egyptologist George Andew Reisner in 1907. Because of lower Nubia’s proximity to Egypt and the egyptocentric focus of Reisner, the differences in material culture and burial practices were ingnored and C-group culture was mistakenly assigned to Egypt. “While Reisner did undertake excavations at Kerma during 1913-1916, the wider significance of the discoveries he made there were not fully appreciated, and a strongly Egypto-centric perspective coloured his interpretations of what he found. Massive mudbrick architecture and abundant Egyptian artifacts were seen as evidence for an Egyptian trading post at the site. Massive timuli and the often extraordinarily rich burials they contained, perhaps the most spectacular finds were assigned to Egyptian governors.” (Edwards 2004) With much of early Nubian (C-Group) culture being wrongly attributed to Egypt much of the differences in aesthetic and meaning were lost early on too but now those perceptions are changing. “Our growing awareness of the true scale and nature of the Kerma phenomenon is changing our perceptions of the C-Group further north. Rather than being a discrete bounded regional culture which can be understood as purely Lower Nubian phenomenon, the C-Group can now begin to be appreciated as part of a much more extensive cultural tradition, whose heartland lat in the rich and fertile Dongola Reach. As has been suspected (Gratien 1978; Bietak 1979) The Nubian C-Group gives rise to the Kingdom of Kerma the first kingdom to unify the area, and first tropical African urban center. Kerma was distinct from Egypt as noted by its location above the third cataract, and its practice of burying leaders in round graves known as “timuli”. In addition to this, early graves at Kerma are buried with a heavy emphasis on cattle “The tombs were generally stone rings, up to 1m high, either infilled with sand and gravel, or with stone. As in the Kerma region, stone stelae are also found in C-Group contexts, with incised designs especially of cattle (e.g Steindorf 1935; Williams 1983) This emphasis on cattle suggests a pastoral origin similar to contemporary pastoral Sudanese populations, this pastoral connection to Sub-saharan Africa rather than Egypt further emphasizes Nubian distinction from Egypt. Eventually Kerma acquired enough stability to begin to construct large palace and religious structures. One most notably known as the Western Deffuffa, a religious temple building of mud brick construction that’s center room was constructed as a circle (potential connection with round grave timuli). This circular construction sits in stark contrast to the rectangular shaped rooms of Egypt at the time. Later editions to the Western Deffuffa are made as rectangles possibly an example of Egyptian influence in the region. The later rectangular editions further emphasize the challenges in separating Egyptian and Nubian influences. During the Classic Kerma period (1750BCE-1500BCE) Kerma comes very close to conquering Egypt, a testament to its self-identity and power at the time. “At one point, Kerma came very close to conquering Egypt, with Egypt suffering a "humiliating defeat" by the hands of the Kushites.” (Alberge 2003) The Evidence for this Nubian presence in Egypt is found in the mud-brick construction of some local elite burials. “Rich burials of local elites do become more visible in Lower Nubia. Clusters of unusually large and rich graves at Aniba show various novel forms, some with vaulted mudbrick chambers, as well as mudbrick chapels on the north side of the graves. Such changes may well reflect growing contacts with the South.” (Edwards 2004) The prevalence of mud-brick seems to be large indicator of Nubian distinction. media type="google" key="4996337647601418274&hl=en&fs=true" width="400" height="326" *Dr. Salah Mohammed Ahmed, Deputy Director of Sudan Antiquities and National Museums, discusses Kerma civilization. Eventually Egypt rebounds from Nubian defeat and establishes the New Kingdom. Motivated by pride and desire for Nubian resources, the New Kingdom Egyptians decided to expand south and colonize Nubian land. With this colonization came the destruction of the Kingdom of Kerma, but out of this destruction new Sub-Saharan city centers would rise futher south, these kingdoms would come to be known as the cities of Napata and Meroe. “By the eighth century BC, the Dongola Reach was the focus of political revival that established a new Kushite kingdom in the region. Apparently based in the Napata region of the upper Dongola Reach, this kingdom was also on a much larger scale than any previous polity in the region, extending its influence not only to the north, but also far to the south into central Sudan. From obscure origins, its rulers were to soon conquer and establish their rule over most of Egypt (as the XXVth Dynasty) during the mid-eighth century BC, maintaining a presence for around a century until they were expelled by the Assyrians in 650s. Their brief presence in Egypt has assured their wider cultural recognition in the history of the ancient world, while their adoption of many cultural features of the Egyptian ruling elites, transferred to their Sudanese homelands, contributed to the creation of a distinctive new Kushite culture” (Edwards 2004) Because Napatan Kush briefly occupied Egypt and incorporated many Egyptian customs into Kushite ones, it again becomes difficult to separate the two. No extensive studies have been done on Napatan mortuary practices or architecture. But what can be made note of are Napatan “bed burials”. Egyptians buried their elites in coffins or cartonage, often covered with beadnets and personal jewelry. Napatan bed-burials are an indigenous Nubian practice that seem to be made with intention to contrast Egyptian style burying practices. Further more its also seems that Egyptian style coffin burials were the most prevalent in Napata during the XXVth dynasty when Egyptian influence was at its peak, but later burials show a less Egyptian style. Again pottery also plays a large role in the Egypt/Nubia dichotomy “The dominance of Egyptian norms was by no means absolute, however. While our knowledge is almost entirely limited to pottery groups from burials, it is evident even from these that other ceramic traditions co-existed with the Egyptian. Examples of what appear to be handmade black-topped red bowls are occasionally found in graves, suggesting a continuation of earlier Kushite traditions. There is also a distinctive style of tall wheelmade beakers/cups with a heavy burnished red slip, which may also be a distinctive local development. (Torok 1995) Due to high level of aesthetic similarity Napatan/Egyptian influence is probably the most difficult to differentiate. Until a greater understanding of early Napatan material culture is understood, separating Nubian from Egyptian will remain problematic. As David Edwards put “Only when we have some idea of its point of departure can we begin to appreciate how Egyptian cultural resources were used and manipulated to create new Napatan imperial culture. That its roots may actually have been established much earlier remains possible (Edwards 2004)
 * __Differences in material culture and meaning of Ancient Nubia and Ancient Egypt__**
 * C-Group/Kerma** **(2494BC-1550BC)**
 * Napatan Kingdom (750 BCE-300BCE) and Meroitic Empire (300BCE-325CE)**

During the last centuries of the first millennium the Kushite state emerges with a new economic center focused in the city of Meroe in ther fertile Shendi Reach between the 5th and 6th cataracts. This new Kushite capital of Meroe is much more materially distinct from Egypt and finds itself in the written accounts of the Romans, Egyptians, and Greeks. The first indication of its distinction is the emergence of a new completely Meroitic style of pottery “What is clear during the Meroitic period is that Napatan pottery traditions, which had drawn heavily on the Egyptian, were replaced by new types of pottery, with a range of origins. (Torok 2001) This new style of pottery was also accompanied by a new age or iron working as seen by the presence of large mounds of iron slag. The emergence of this local robust iron and artisan industry is a good indication of strong and stable state, Egypt surely took notice. Yet another difference Meroitic Nubia had with its Egyptian counterpart was its practice of recording highly elaborate familial relationships in funerary inscriptions. In lower and middle Nubia this practice was possibly indicative of long term ancestor veneration. While the reasons for this are still unknown it is important to make note of Nubia's divergence in record keeping as another indicator of its unique culture. To further compound this Meroitic cultural explosion, one of the most significant material developments in Meroitic Nubia was the emergence of a unique Meroitic script. “The developed written forms of Meroitic mark it out as unique within Sub-Saharan Africa during this period” (Edwards 2004) Meroitic script was first based on Egyptian hieroglyphs but eventually became its own standardized script of twenty-three characters.
 * Meroe**

The most stark contrast Nubia has with its northern neighbor is religion. Even though the cult of Amun and other "Egyptian" Gods were present in Nubia and Egytpocentric archaeologists have focused heavily on the Egyptian aspects of Meroitic religion, one feature intrigues even them. The prominence of a local god Apedemak “One of the particularly distinctive features of the Meroitic period is the rise to prominence of a local Kushite god Apedemak, especially in the Meroitic heartlands of the central Sudan.” (Zakbar 1975) Apedemak was most likely the Kushite god of War with some association with fertility. Apedemak was closely associated with Royal power, with the thrown of Meroitic Kush always being depicted with a lion. He is always depicted within the context of Egyptian hieroglyphs and religion, again reiterating the fact the even though Meroitic Kush was its own kingdom it still held close cultural ties with Egypt.

These close cultural ties with Egypt have caused the uniqueness of sub-Saharan Africas greatest Ancient civilzation to often be ignored. A-Group, C-Group, The kingdom Kerma, Napata and Meroe have all been periods culturally distinct from anything Egypt had to offer. Though the similarities may be daunting at times, Nubia was conclusively not an Egyptian imitation, even the opposite could be true. Because Nubia is located in modern day Sudan, a country rife with political turmoil, it may be years until we unlock the vast and rich wealth of knowledge this ancient civilization has to share with us. Until that day we can sit in awe of the land that conquered Egypt and lasted well after it had fallen. Save Darfur.

Works Cited Adams, William Y. "Sacred and Secular Polities in Ancient Nubia." __World Archaeology__ Political Systems 6 (1974): 39-51. __EBSCO__. JSTOR. University of Central Florida, Orlando. 30 Mar. 2009 . __Ancient African civilizations Kush and Axum__. Princeton: M. Wiener, 1998. Breasted, James H. "Recovery and Decipherment of the Monuments of Ancient Ethiopia." __Google Scholar__. JSTOR. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 30 Mar. 2009 . Edwards, David N. __Nubian past an archaeology of the Sudan__. New York: Routledge, 2004. Edwards, David N. __The Archaeology of Sudan and Nubia__. Leicester: University of Leicester, 2007. Torok, Laszlo. __The Image of the Ordered World in Ancient Nubian Art The Construction of the Kushite Mind, 800 Bc-300 Ad (Probleme Der Agyptologie, 18. Bd.)__. New York: Brill Academic, 2001. Zakbar, L. V. __Apedemak: Lion God of Meroe .__ Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1975 Williams, B.B __The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qutsul: Cemetery L__, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1986 Gratien, B __Les Cultures Kerma. Essai de Classification__, Lille: Publications de L’Universite’ de Lille III, 1978 Bietak, M. __‘Ceramics of the C-Group culture’__, in F. Hintze (ed.) Africa in Antiquity (Meroitica 5), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1979 Crawford, O.G.S __"People without History”__, Antiquity 22 8-12, 1948