User:Mramosbarajas

TOMBOS, ANCIENT NUBIA-PRESENT DAY SUDAN

2 Significance of site to ancient Egypt

3 Excavation History

4 SECONDARY SCHOLARS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE ACADEMIC DISCUSSION AND DEBATE IN TOMBOS

4.1 Michelle R. Buzon

4.2 Smith & Buzon

4.3 Von Anthony Spanliger

4.4 W.Vivian Davies

4.5 Other Notable Institutions and Archaeologist at Tombos

5 TOUR OF NOTABLE MONUMENTS AT TOMBOS

5.1 Cemetery at Tombos

5.2 King Thutmose I Victory Stela, Year 20

5.3 Island of Tombos, Stela inscription of Year 20 of Thutmose III

5.4 Stela of Usersatet and Hakaemsasen

6 DISCUSSION ON TOMBOS’ CHRONOLOGY

7 See Also

8 Tombos Bibliography of References

9 PDFs

10 WEBSITES

SITE: TOMBOS, ANCIENT NUBIA-PRESENT DAY SUDAN

Significance of site to ancient Egypt

Tombos or as locally known Tumbus, is a site located in modern day Sudan that dates back to the Ancient Egyptian Empire of the 18th Dynasty. The site of Tombos is located around the Third Cataract in Sudan. It is below 20 degrees North Latitude. Tombos is located 25km North of the city of Kerma (Budka, 2003) . During Egypt’s New Kingdom, Tombos was an important site in Nubia becaused it was the southernmost colonial administrative center where tribute for the King of Egypt was collected. Today, it is important as it allows archaeologists to understand the extent of the Ancient Egyptian colonization and the incorporation of Nubia into the Egyptian Empire during the New Kingdom. The expansion of Egypt into Nubia occurred during the reign of Thutmose I, third King of the 18th Dynasty (Budka,2003). The war campaign was aimed at Empire building and continuing the control of Egypt as far into Nubia as possible (Budka, 2003). So far, the site’s main occupation dates back to the 18th Dynasty. It was previously thought that Tombos marked the Southernmost end of the Egyptian Empire but new excavations at Hagar el Merwa near Kurgus upstream of the Fourth cataract, dated to year 2 have concluded that Kurgus is actually, the Southernmost boundary of Egyptian territory (Budka, 2003). Then as to what purpose did Tombos served? As Smith stated in his book Wretched Kush, in the chapter titled, Death at Tombos, “Tombos acted as the point from where the annual tribute and trade for the King was assembled by Amun through mortal hands” (2008). Following the collapse of the New Kingdom into the third Intermediary Period, Tombos recedes into the background where a hybridization of Egyptian and Nubian culture identity and tradition is made that reemerges with the rise of the Nubian formed Napatan 25th Dynasty(Smith, n.d). At which point, Tombos is functioning as a cemetery (Smith, 2003). Napata

Excavation History Tombos has been primarily excavated by Stuart Tyson Smith from the University of California Santa Barbara. The excavations have been conducted on and off from 2000 to 2010. There has also been other researchers who have worked with Smith or have published works relating to the tombos site. The excavation of Tombos has yielded some interesting artifacts and while most of the valuable objects had been looted, Tombos is significant in the manner that it can provide examples of the entanglements and interrelations of colonial Egyptians and the native Nubians. Smith and Buzon, have co-authored a paper that exposes the entanglement created by the colonial Egyptians and their Nubian counterparts (2010). This paper is significant because it broadens the perspective of the usual labeling of modern colonial definitions and compares the modern definition with a new focus that is based on the key word entanglement as the best label to define the mixing and hybridity that was created at Tombos and that later influenced the Napatan, 25th Dynasty Period. Tombos is used as a reference to define how the entanglement, led to the mixed ideology of the Napata time period. This is significant because, we can relate subjects to matter. The same way that we can look at Amarna and look at their art and see how daily life was illustrated and draw conclusions about how life was at Amarna. Therefore, while observing the archaeological record at Tombos, we can see elements that will be definitive markers for the Napatan Period and we can point to a time and place where these markers were created and implemented.

SECONDARY SCHOLARS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE ACADEMIC DISCUSSION AND DEBATE IN TOMBOS

Michelle R. Buzon

Specializes in Bioarchaeological perspective on Egyptian colonialism and subjects of the New Kingdom. She has written countless reports on her findings at Tombos and their objectivity towards the Hybrid discussion that was created by the colonization of Nubia. She also wrote a paper titled Health and Disease of Non-Elites at Tombos: Nutritional and Disease Stress in New Kingdom Nubia, Her findings were significant because compared to other groups and egyptians, the Tombonians suffered great health problems and lacked access to nutritional foods during early childhood. Her findings support the idea that being part of Egyptian Empire did not mean there was access to food resources.

Smith & Buzon

Smith and Buzon have co authored three papers that underline the findings at Tombos and also create new definitions to define the Hybridity as entanglement as opposed to Barry Kemp’s Europeanized colonialist definitions.

Von Anthony Spanliger

Has Written an very informative paper titled, The Calendrical Importance of the Tombos Stela. This paper proposes that one of the dates on the Thutmose I Victory stela, dates to his coronation at Luxor Thebes. Spalinger supports his ideas with cross material evidence from other sites.

W.Vivian Davies

Has published articles for The British Museum. His focus on Tombos’ subject matter are the viceroys of Egypt and Nubia. Also importantly, Davis proposes that Viceroys have a two name system, as observed with Viceroy Inebny/ Amenemnekhu.

Other Notable Institutions and Archaeologist at Tombos

University of Chicago’s Egyptian expedition in 1907- 1908, by James H. Breasted an American Archeologist and Geologist Save-Soderbergh in 1941. Julia Budka; and Julia L. Carrano et. al, who specializes in ceramic studies and her application to Tombos ceramics.

'TOUR OF NOTABLE MONUMENTS AT TOMBOS'

Cemetery at Tombos''''

No Temples have been found at Tombos but excavations have uncovers an important cemetery that holds important clues to deciphering the colonial entanglement of Egyptians and Native Nubian people and their traditions. Remains of Elite style pyramids have also been uncovered at the Tombos cemetery the most important being the tomb pyramid of Siamun, Overseer of Foreign Lands, a third level administrator and his wife, Weren (Buzon, 2007).It is important to Note that during the New Kingdom, it is common for Elites to have pyramid style tombs as, the kings of the New Kingdom are building hidden tombs in the Valley of the Kings and Queens (class discussion, Dr. Lizka) . In accordance to Buzon’s same article, Migration in the Nile Valley during the New Kingdom Period, Siamun’s pyramid style and most importantly, the funerary cones, reflect a style that is only found in Thebes. This catalogues his tomb and origin as a colonial administrator brought over from Thebes to Tombos, Nubia, to work for the State as a Colonial Administrator. The cemetery has also provided important information about the health of colonial Tombonians and the colonial entanglements that gave rise to the Napatan Period traditions (Smitha & Buzon, 2014). In the Napatan Period, the cemetery was marked by a strong sense of different cultural memories, this is Smith & Buzon’s view towards the cemetery (2014). In addition, according to same Smith and Buzon’s paper (2014), Another piece of the commemoration article is that There is a distinction that must be made, one that compares between short term commemorations of individuals lived experiences Vs. those that evoke Long-term cultural memories. Also, a distinction must be made over, a consideration of Inscribed Vs. incorporated with this in mind, we must ask,what purpose do the monuments and the landscape signify at the site of Tombos? Are they more than public announcements or do they have a deeper meaning? Tombos, in this regard serves also as a monument that captures elements of monumentality within the landscape of itself, Tombos is situated in a strategic position and its cemetery is continually used from the New Kingdom into the Napatan Period. Tombos’ landscape creates an intersection of commemoration, remembrance, and the entanglements resilience to uphold itself through the historical transition that took place during the Second Intermediary (Smith & Buzon, 2014). To understand the previous statement, it is important that it is briefly explained. According to Smith and Buzon (2014) ; Smith (Sudan and Nubia article) Panehesy the last Viceroy of Kush, rebelled against Pharaoh Ramses XI, who is situated at Pi Ramesses. Panehesy and the Nubian colonial army are marching to Pi Ramesses when they are forced back into Nubia by, Herihor former general, later High Priest of Amun, who is installed at Thebes. Thus Herihor later also installs himself as a Pharaoh type in Thebes and when he dies his successor, has a claim against the Ramassean Dynasty. At the same time, Nubia has seceded from Egypt and the aims to get it back are useless as Pi Ramesses is in conflict with Thebes. The archeology of Nubia during the Third Intermediate Period enters what Smith has called, “a historical dark age that lasts for 300 years and reemerges with the Nubian Dynasty around 750 BC” (Smith, Sudan & Nubia).

King Thutmose I Victory Stela, Year 20

According to Julia Budka (2003) ,The great rock stela of Thutmose I at Tombos reflects nautical military importance in addition to the geographical relevance of the site as well. Tombos is located 25km North of the city of Kerma making the site’s geographical location important as the northern entrance to the Dongola Region. From the South- Egypt, Tombos marks the end of naval navigability of the river (Budka,2003). Extracted from Von Anthony Spalinger, The Calendrical importance of the Tombos Stela (1995) paper, the Stela has also a different date that has been concluded to be the date in which Thutmose I gets crowned at Thebes during the Opet festival. The first date stated is the date that according to Spalinger, is when Thutmose I returns to Tombos from his victory in the heartland of Upper Nubia and the latter, is for his coronation at Luxor, in Thebes during the Opet_Festival (Feast). In addition, Spalinger offers the “standard chronological pattern for the change of power from one New Kingdom Pharaoh to another: (1) death of old king; (2) accession of new king; and (3) subsequent coronation at Luxor, probably during the Opet Feast. Also there could have been another in Memphis but not date has been provided” (Spalinger, 1995).

Island of Tombos, Stela inscription of Year 20 of Thutmose III

On the island of Tombos, on a granite boulder, Hieroglyphs document of a visit from King Thutmose III (6th pharaoh of 18th Dyn.) in Year 20. Due to extensive damage from lamination, part of the surface has become damaged. This stela has been previously documented by the University of Chicago Egyptian expedition in 1907- 1908, by James H. Breasted an American Archeologist and Geologist Save-Soderbergh in 1941. The effaced Stelae has resulted to be that mentioning the double name of the viceroy Inebny/ Amenemnekhu an early viceroy to Hatshepsut and Thutmose III’s coregency.

Stela of Usersatet and Hakaemsasen

This Stela contains two male figures standing back to back. They point to a cartouche with the name Amenhotep II. The stela is incomplete on one side which indicates that the complete side was more important than the other. According to Davis (2009) the incomplete side was probably finished in paint rather than carved into the rock. Also according to Davis in his analysis of the stela, Usersatet, the viceroy for this time, is being depicted in this stela and the other with the incomplete writing is none other than Hekaemsasen/ Pahekaemsasen, a Nubian Prince in the court of the king. Hekaemsasen’s mentioning is important because, Davis uses additional material from elsewhere to draw his conclusions and for the matter of Hekaemsasen, Funerary cones have been found in Thebes that contain the title for “Pahekaemsasen, fan-bearer (on the right of the king), overseer of the portal (of the royal palace)” (Davis, 2009). It is also notable, according to Davis, that Hekaemsasen contains the same titles as Usersatet making Hekaemsasen of equal status to Usersatet even though, Hekaemsasen is not Egyptian as is Usersatet. William Vivian Davies believes that this stela, commemorates the integration of Nubian indigenous elite into the Egyptian governance of kush, a significant colonial administrative strategy.

DISCUSSION ON TOMBOS’ CHRONOLOGY

Through the limited evidence that excavations and monuments have provided, we can only draw from them the sites occupation from the New Kingdom to the present. From the beginning, Egyptian influence is stronger in Lower Nubia. Than Upper Nubia. During the mid 18th Dynasty in the New Kingdom (1550- 1050 BCE) the Egyptian empire’s control expands from Lower Nubia to Central Nubia just up to Kurgus (Spalinger, 1995 ) Prior to this, Egypt held control up to the Second Cataract until the Second Intermediary Period at which time,Nubian civilization flourishes at Kerma. The capital of Kerma is about 25 kilometer from Tombos and this is significant that when the Egyptians come into Nubia following the defeat of Kerma, Tombos becomes an important tribute collection site (Budka, 2003).

See Also

Opet_FestivalTombos Stela

Tombos Stela

Tombos Bibliography of References

Tombos_(Nubia)

PDFs

Budka, J. (2005). The Third Cataract Its Historical and Political Importance According to Royal and Private Rock Inscriptions at Tombos. In, Amenta, A., Luiselli, M.M., Sordi, M.N. L’ACQUA NELL’ANTICO EGITTO vita, rigenerazione, incantesimo, medicamento. (pp.107-116). Roma: L’ERMA di BRETSCHNEIDER

Buzon, M.R. (2005). Health of the Non-Elites at Tombos: Nutritional and disease Stress in New Kingdom Nubia. 130. pp.26-37. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20303. www.interscience.wiley.com

Buzon, M.R. (2008). A Bioarchaeological Perspective on Egyptian Colonialism in Nubia during the New Kingdom. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. Vol. 94. pp.165-181. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40345866

Carrano, J. (2009). Applying a Multi-Analytical Approach to the Investigation of Ancient Egyptian Influence in Nubian Communities:The Socio-Cultural Implications of Chemical Variation in Ceramic Styles. Vol. I:3. pp.11-21. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections. http://jaci.library.arizona.edu

Carrano, J.L et al. (2009). Re-examining the Egyptian colonial encounter in Nubia through a compositional, mineralogical, and textural comparison of ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science. 36. pp.785-797. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2008.11.002

Davies, W.V. (2008). Tombos and the Viceroy Inebny/ Amenemnekhu. 10. 39-63. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_journals/bmsaes/issue_10/davis.aspx

Davies, W.V. (2009). The British Museum epigraphic survey at Tombos: the stela of Usersatet and Hakaemsasen. Issue 14. pp.25-50. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_journals/bmsaes/issue_14/davies.aspx

Davis, W.V. (2012). Merymose and others at Tombos. Sudan & Nubia: The Sudan Archaeological Research Society. No. 16. pp.29-36. ISSN Number 1369-5770

Smith, S.T. & Buzon, M.R. (2014). Identity, Commemoration, and Remembrance in Colonial Encounters: Burials at Tombos during the Egyptian New Kingdom Nubian Empire and Its Aftermath. In, B.W. Porter & A.T. Boutin, Remembering the Dead in Ancient Near East: Recent contributions from Bioarchaeology and Mortuary Archaeology. (pp. 185-215). Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. DOI: 10.5876/9781607323204.coo6

Smith, S.T. (2003). Chapter 6, Death at Tombos. In Smith’s Wretched Kush. (pp. 136-166). London, England: Routledge.

Smith, S.T. (n.d). Kirwan Memorial Lecture, Death at Tombos: Pyramids, Iron and the Rise of the Napatan Dynasty. Sudan & Nubia: The Sudan Archaeological Research Society. Pp.1-16. https://www.academia.edu/2780103/Kirwan_Memorial_Lecture._Death_at_Tombos_Pyramids_Iron_and_the_Rise_of_the_Napatan_Dynasty

Spalinger, A. (1995). The Calendric Importance of the Tombos Stela. Studien Zur Altagymtichen Kultur, Bd. 22. Pp, 271-281. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25152720

WEBSITES

Wood, C. (2006). Nubia- Survey & excavations: Tombos Excavation. Retrieved from Department of Anthropology at UCSB, Website for Dr. Smith, http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/stsmith/research/excavations.html and also, http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/stsmith/research/tombos.html

Categories: Archaeological sites in SudanNubia