The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC – AD 500

BOOK REVIEW Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC – AD 500. By László Török. Probleme der Ägyptologie 29, Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2009, xxii + 651 pp. ISBN 978-90-04-17197-8. € 180.00. In Between Two Worlds, László Török examines the long the great powers that lay to the north and south. In history of interaction between ancient Egypt and Nubia taking this stance, Török is in tune with recent trends through the lens of Lower Nubia, the region between in Nubian studies that eschew older Egyptocentric the first and second cataracts of the Nile (today mostly perspectives derived from simplistic models stressing a in Egypt). Török begins with an introduction and discus- dominant core (Egypt) driving political, economic and sion of Lower Nubia as a frontier between Egypt and cultural developments in a subordinate periphery (Nu- Upper Nubia (Northern Sudan, where two major Nubian bia). Although he largely rejects the use of “models”, civilizations arose, the Kerman and Napatan/Meroitic Török does explicitly employ a theoretical framework kingdoms of Kush). The following fourteen chapters of acculturation and syncretism throughout his work. highlight Lower Nubia as a locus of sometimes peaceful The term “acculturation” has tended in the past to be but often bellicose interaction between Egyptians and associated with a core-periphery paradigm (e.g., CUSI C K Nubians from the late Neolithic to the Iron Age, organ- 1998). Here Török uses the term in a more nuanced ized more or less following an Egyptian chronological way, arguing that even where Egypt’s cultural and periodization. He focuses mostly on the period of Egypt’s theological impact seems direct, one must understand New Kingdom colonial occupation (ca 1550–1070 BC) that “in a Nubian context, also the Egyptian constitu- and the succeeding Napatan/Meroitic kingdom, including ent is Nubian and our task is to understand the Nubian a consideration of Nubia’s complex encounter with Hel- contents that have been articulated with the help of lenism and the Roman Empire (ca 850 BC to AD 500). Egyptian means…” (p. xviii, emphasis original). Thus Török’s command of the historical and archaeological in spite of the considerable Egyptological content in literature allows him to combine the two sources in in- Between Two Worlds, Török has taken what I think novative ways that provide a rich context for his often is a very sensible middle way between those who see provocative but well reasoned arguments. Throughout everything as either superficial or no different from the book, he also includes a great deal of background on Egypt itself. both Egypt and Upper Nubia, which has the advantage of providing a contextual framework to his discussion After the rise of first the Egyptian and later Up- of interaction, but sometimes has the unfortunate result per Nubian states, Lower Nubia was more often sub- of shifting focus away from Lower Nubia. It also con- ordinate to either a northern or southern power than tributes to the book’s considerable length, which might independent. The bellicose policy of the early pharaohs prove a bit daunting for the non-specialist. On the other led to the destruction and expulsion of the A-Group hand, his focus on larger questions makes the book of kingdom from the Lower Nubian Nile (ca 2800 BC), considerable use for those interested in comparing simi- one of the few examples of an independent Lower lar issues in different times and places. I will focus my Nubian polity. Diplomacy and trade, however, initially review on some of these larger questions, including the characterized the relationship between Egypt and the C- dynamics of acculturation and syncretism, power and Group, who emerged after the Egyptian withdrawal of ideology, and political economy. Lower Nubia (ca 2400 BC). The Egyptian re-conquest of Lower Nubia was prompted by what Török rightly Török sees Lower Nubia as a dynamic frontier characterizes as the spectacular unfolding of the Middle with shifting patterns of control and influence from Kerma state (ca 2050–1750 BC), the first kingdom of DOI 10.3213/1612-1651-10145 Published online in January 2010 © Africa Magna Verlag, Frankfurt M. Journal of African Archaeology Vol. 8 (1), 2010, pp. 145-148 145 Book Review Kush. Although originally thought of as an Egyptian Byblos, whose deity was syncretized with the Egyptian outpost, Between Two Worlds includes a good summary goddess Hathor. Török rightly points out that the con- of the recent archaeological work that demonstrates the trast between the two ends of Egypt’s empire has been Nubian origins, complexity, and power of this Upper overdrawn. Nubian princes retained some degree of Nubian state that eventually came to rival Egypt. The autonomy, and Nubian deities and religious practices in- injection of large numbers of colonists into the fortress- fluenced the expression of the syncretized cults in Nubia es and fortified towns set up in Lower Nubia during the and in Egypt. For example, Török notes that Nubian ram Middle Kingdom did, however, profoundly affect the imagery was added to the iconography of Amun-Re, and cultural dynamics of Lower Nubia. Török draws upon argues on the basis of iconography and epithets that the my own work (SMITH 1995, 2003) to advance the idea manifestation of Amun worshipped in Luxor Temple that these colonial communities were spaces of mutual at Thebes likely represents the Nubian Amun of Gebel acculturation between Egyptian colonists and various Barkal. Török also perceptively traces Nubian influ- Nubian groups living in a globalized world (including ence in the construction of temples cut into the face of the C-Group, semi-nomadic Pan Grave, and southern cliffs and mountains like Abu Simbel in Lower Nubia, Kermans). He goes on to argue persuasively that these resonating with a long and continuing history of sacred communities, who survived a shift to Kerman control mountains and the use of caves as shrines. (ca 1650 BC) and re-conquest by Egypt (ca 1550 BC), provided a foundation and conduit for Egyptian influ- Between Two Worlds is in my opinion less success- ence during the New Kingdom. ful in extending the idea of syncretism to the dramatic shift in Lower Nubian funerary practice. Török sup- Török’s reconstruction of the intersection of reli- ports Säve-Söderbergh and Troy’s original claim that gious syncretism and imperial policy during this pe- the rural cemetery at Fadrus documents only a selec- riod is one of the strongest sections in the book. He tive adoption of Egyptian burial practice in the general argues persuasively that the construction of major new population, noting the rarity of characteristic Egyptian temples and restoration of Middle Kingdom shrines features like the removal of internal organs and place- deliberately created a new religious landscape that ment in canopic jars and the provision of specialized emphasized royal authority while forging new rela- inscribed amulets like heart scarabs and figurines like tionships between Egyptian and Nubian deities. He Ushabtis. As I have pointed out elsewhere, however, refreshingly goes beyond the typical unidirectional the assumption that these items were requirements of models of Egyptianization, instead arguing for proc- any proper Egyptian burial cannot be justified in the esses of religious syncretism that ultimately created a archaeological record (SMITH 2003: 155–159). Török theological exchange between Nubia and Egypt. For argues against this by asserting an equivalence between example, the restoration of Middle Kingdom temples the Egyptian elite and the wealthier burials at Fadrus. and emphasis on Egyptian deities connected with Nu- However, these practices were restricted in Egypt to a bia like Khnum, Satet, and Anukis (the divine family level of society on a par with the Lower Nubian princes, associated with the first cataract) provided a powerful who as Török acknowledges were provisioned with manifestation of theological unity with Egypt in both these items. The cemetery at Fadrus is instead equiva- Lower and Upper Nubia. At the same time, syncretism lent to provincial cemeteries in Egypt or more modest of Egyptian deities Horus and Hathor with local gods components of the massive cemetery at Thebes, where in Lower Nubia (e.g., Horus of Buhen, Hathor of Iqen) such items are rare in spite of the fact many of these provided a divine model of Egyptianization that unified tombs contained well-wrapped and shrouded bodies, the sacred landscapes of conqueror and conquered. The and inscribed coffins. Török is mistaken when he raises most powerful expression of this phenomenon centered another objection that placement of bodies at Fadrus on on a local Upper Nubian ram cult syncretized with the their sides went against the Egyptian positioning fac- cult of Amun-Re, the chief god of the capital at Thebes ing the rising sun’s rays. Prior to and during the New and the preeminent state cult of the New Kingdom. Kingdom bodies were commonly placed on their sides in Egypt. For example, around a third of New Kingdom This Egyptianization is often used to draw a con- burials at the provincial cemetery at Qau in Egypt lay trast between Egypt’s heavy hand in Nubia compared to on their sides (BR UNTON 1930). a hands-off policy towards its Levantine vassals, who in addition to being influenced by Egypt had a significant Even though I fail to see selective Egyptianization impact on Egyptian theology and culture including the at Fadrus, Török is correct in noting against conven- adoption of deities like Reshep and Ba’al (Hadad) into tional wisdom that Nubian burial practice survived the Egyptian pantheon. Yet some Levantine centers the Egyptianizing trend of the New Kingdom. Nubian also show a similar level of influence, most notably style flexed burials continue at Fadrus into the later 146 Journal of African Archaeology Vol.

Load more