This article was downloaded by: [University of Bergen] On: 24 June 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789752209] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Norwegian Archaeological Review Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713926118 The Kingdom of Kush: An African Centre on the Periphery of the Bronze Age World System Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos Online Publication Date: 01 June 2009 To cite this Article Hafsaas-Tsakos, Henriette(2009)'The Kingdom of Kush: An African Centre on the Periphery of the Bronze Age World System',Norwegian Archaeological Review,42:1,50 — 70 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00293650902978590 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650902978590 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. ARTICLE SARC Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2009 The Kingdom of Kush: An African Centre on the Periphery of the Bronze Age World System HENRIETTE HAFSAAS-TSAKOS Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 The Kingdom of Kush The Kingdom of Kush flourished in northern Sudan between 2000 and 1500 BCE. During this period, the capital Kerma emerged as a major economic and political centre in the Nile Valley. After a short review of the application of world system theory and centre-periphery perspectives in archaeology, the author proceeds to a presentation of the Bronze Age societies in northern Sudan and their wide-reaching trade relations. A central argument is that an incentive for the rise of the Kingdom of Kush was its intermediate position in long-distance trade between the north and the south. The article concludes with a discussion of Kush as a centre on the periphery of the so-called Bronze Age World System in Afro-Eurasia. INTRODUCTION Several scholars have argued in favour of the existence from around 3000 BCE 1 of a Bronze Age World System (see below for references). Egypt was from the beginning of the Bronze Age one of the core areas in this network with hinterlands including parts of two continents – north-east Africa and south-west Asia. A millennium later, Egypt’s principal rival in the south was an emerging kingdom in what is today’s northern Sudan. The Egyptians called this kingdom Kush, and this political entity seems to have been established around 2000 BCE. Strangely, the existence of a centre south of Egypt is largely ignored by the Bronze Age World System proponents, and if northern Sudan is included, it is considered only as a periphery of Egypt. This paper is a proposition to include northern Sudan in the interregional exchange networks of the Bronze Age and to promote Kush as one of the centres of this world system. In the following pages, I give a short introduction to the world system theory and its implications for the Bronze Age of AfroEurasia. Then I proceed to a discussion of the Kerma people in northern Sudan, whose trade connections with the outside world were an important stimulus for the emergence of the Kingdom of Kush. I conclude with a proposition that the rise of the Kingdom of Kush created a new centre on the southernmost periphery of the Bronze Age World System. WALLERSTEIN AND THE MODERN WORLD SYSTEM The sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein’s perspective, as defined in his work The Modern World System (1974, 1980, 1989), Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos, Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies, and Religion, University of Bergen, Norway. E-mail: Henriette.Hafsas@ahkr.uib.no DOI: 10.1080/00293650902978590 © 2009 Taylor & Francis Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 The Kingdom of Kush has inspired the focus on world systems and centre-periphery relations in archaeological research. This trilogy contains his reflections on the development of capitalism in Europe from the late 15th century, as well as the subsequent dispersal of capitalist economies. Wallerstein integrated the numerous economies of the world into a ‘World System’ that was divided into three zones: cores, semiperipheries and peripheries. Cores are political and economic centres where relationships are characterized by status differentiation and labour specialization. Semi-peripheries represent a midpoint on a continuum running from a core to its periphery (1974:102–103). Finally, the peripheries are economically defined as suppliers of raw materials and geographically situated at a distance from the cores (Rice 1998:45). According to Wallerstein, world systems have long-term continuity and cover extensive territories encompassing several interlinked ‘cultural groupings’ (Wallerstein 1979:156). A characteristic of Wallerstein’s model is that the cores accumulate wealth at the expense of the peripheries. The centres and peripheries are linked by the flows of commodities, and the relationship between the two poles is structured by the nature of the goods exchanged. The resources of the peripheries typically comprise raw materials and unprocessed agricultural products, while the commodities exported from the centres are generally manufactured goods. This exchange of added value for primary value gives an asymmetrical dimension to the relationship between centres and peripheries, where the centres monopolize high-skill manufacture and technologies of mass production (Sherratt 1993:4). A centreperiphery perspective thus implies relationships of dominance by the centre over the periphery, but also of resistance from the periphery towards the centre. It follows that the profits of the centres can lead to impoverishment or even underdevelopment of the peripheries. In my opinion, the beginning of asymmetrical exchange is the incentive for 51 the development of the uneven distribution of resources and consumption that characterizes the unequal world that is still reproduced today. CONTINUATION OR TRANSFORMATION In the humanistic and social sciences, there is an on-going debate between proponents of the continuous history and development of world systems since the beginning of the Bronze Age 5000 years ago and proponents of a single world system as a recent phenomenon beginning in Europe in the last 500 years. The promoters of continuity have a continuationist perspective, while the supporters of the world system as a modern development have a transformationist standpoint (Frank & Gills 2000). This controversy is part of the formalist-substantivist divide, where the formalists argue that ancient and non-Western economies differ from capitalism only in scale, while the substantivists claim that these economies are fundamentally different from Western capitalist economies (Smith 2004:75). The transformationist view is essentially Eurocentric, because it ignores the existence of world systems prior to European hegemony as well as those exterior to the European continent. In contrast, the proponents of the continuationist standpoint argue that the modern world system has predecessors on other continents than Europe and earlier than 1500 CE (Abu-Lughod 1989, Frank 1993, Frank & Gills 1993, Chase-Dunn & Hall 1991, 1994, Denemark et al. 2000). The continuationists see the world system as continuous, although changing through time. Furthermore, they argue that the circumstances that made the world system after 1492 CE so special were a set of particular historical events, which resulted in the merging of the world system of Afro-Eurasia with America. The cross-Atlantic contact was initiated by Europeans, and this gave them an advantage in the control of the global 52 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos economy and world politics. The Europeans have maintained this hegemony together with their descendants in North America until today. However, the world’s main economic centres seem likely to shift to Asia, particularly to China, in the near future. Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 WORLD SYSTEMS AND CENTRE-PERIPHERY PERSPECTIVES IN ARCHAEOLOGY As is often the case with sociological approaches, Wallerstein’s initial model lacked the long-term dimension that has subsequently been added by historical and archaeological research on world systems. In order to bridge the gap between continuationist and transformationist perspectives, the important questions to discuss are when and where largescale supra-regional networks of exchange first appeared. One of the first scholars to suggest that the world system perspective could be applied to pre-modern societies was Jane Schneider when she criticized Wallerstein’s model as being ‘too narrow an application of its own theory’ (1977:20). Archaeologists have since then broadened the world system debate by documenting the long-term continuity of such exchange systems in different parts of the world as well as the development of centres on continents other than Europe. The results of this research imply that multiple world systems have developed and merged since the beginning of the Bronze Age (see Ekholm & Friedman 1979, Pailes & Whitecotton 1979, Blanton & Feinman 1984, Kohl 1987, Algaze 1989, Edens 1992, Edens & Kohl 1993, Frank 1993, Sherratt 1993, Sanderson 1995, Barrett 1998). The unremitting expansions, contractions and fusions of world systems are due to the dynamics of interactions and transactions between different regions. Archaeology offers a chronological dimension to world system trajectories, as well as insights into the development and dynamics of centres and peripheries. So far, Wallerstein’s world system theory has been fruitful for how archaeologists have approached past inter-regional interaction in both the Old and New Worlds. Proposed alternative models for describing and explaining cross-cultural interaction and long-distance exchange have not gained the same widespread use as the world system theory. Nevertheless, the time seems ripe to advance the ground laid by the world system approach by combining rather than replacing it with, for instance, the anthropology of consumption, globalization perspectives or network theory (Dietler 1998, Vandkilde 2004, Sindbæk 2007). The transfer of commodities and raw materials is one of the most important sources for the understanding of crosscultural relationships in prehistory. However, the focus on the transfer of material culture as the link between different regions should not lead us to ignore the fact that the relations between interconnected societies also instigate cultural, political, social, ideological and religious interchanges through the movement of people and the diffusion of ideas. Furthermore, materiality has the potential to provide more information than just the reconstruction of ancient trade routes. Material culture is one of the media through which social relationships and interactions are expressed, and archaeology can uncover how the material world was used in the articulation and negotiations of relationships between centres and peripheries. THE BRONZE AGE WORLD SYSTEM IN AFRO-EURASIA The research on the so-called Bronze Age World System was instigated by Philip L. Kohl (1978), when he concluded his study of trade in south-western Asia during the Early Bronze Age with the question: ‘Can Wallerstein’s model be modified to explain interactions in a “world” system that stretched from the Balkans and the Nile to the Indus Valley in the 4th and 3rd millennia B.C.?’ This Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 The Kingdom of Kush question was followed up by a series of articles discussing a Bronze Age World System in western Asia with Mesopotamia as a centre (Kohl 1987, Algaze 1989, 1993; Edens 1992, Edens & Kohl 1993). The geographical extension of the research on a Bronze Age World System gradually included the Mediterranean and temperate Europe, but north-east Africa has never been fully incorporated (Frank 1993, Sherratt 1993, Chase-Dunn & Hall 1994, Kristiansen 1998, Sherratt 2000, Frank & Gills 2000, Frank & Thompson 2005). The continuationists argue that this world system, which began its trajectory in the Bronze Age, expanded continuously until the final fusion with the New World made it global around 1500 CE (see Frank 1993:383). Nevertheless, there are different opinions, such as that of the Indian archaeologist Shereen Ratnagar (2001) who builds on post-colonial theory. She maintains that the Bronze Age societies were ‘non-capitalist’ and ‘pre-market’ and thus predate the rise of world systems. I am of the opinion that the seed of capitalism was sown in the Neolithic, when the beginning of food production implies that people started owning property and accumulated capital as cultivated fields and herds of animals respectively. During the Bronze Age, labour input and perishable resources could be converted into storable capital such as metal, textiles, animals, as well as edibles such as grain, oil and wine. Markets, where commodities and raw materials changed hands according to demand and supply, seem to have existed since the beginning of specialized production and long-distance exchange, which were certainly in place from the Bronze Age onwards. During the Bronze Age, the majority of the resources and commodities were consumed through the main markets of the world system of that time, namely Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Aegean. The wide exchange network that the Egyptians participated in can be illustrated by the accumulation of foreign 53 raw materials from peripheral regions, such as turquoise from Sinai, obsidian from Ethiopia, silver from Anatolia, lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, amber from Poland and gold from Kush. It is now time to turn to Kush in northern Sudan and the emergence of a centre on the southernmost periphery of the Bronze Age World System in Afro-Eurasia. THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE NILE VALLEY The stretch of the River Nile that begins at the confluence of the Blue and the White Niles in Khartoum in Central Sudan and ends at Aswan in southern Egypt is called the Middle Nile. This is the Nile of the cataracts – passages through granite outcrops where rapids and islands interrupt the gentle flow of the river (Fig. 1). The natural frontier caused by the treacherous waters of the First Cataract was also the cultural boundary between peoples who considered themselves Egyptian and those who did not – it was the border between Ancient Egypt and the South (Hafsaas 2006:4). This permeable cultural border seems to have been in place already at the beginning of the Bronze Age around 3000 BCE, although the political border has shifted many times. The lands to the south of Egypt in ancient times can be equalized with the area that the ancient Greeks termed ‘Ethiopia’, meaning ‘The Land of Burnt Faces’, or that the Arabs called Bilad as-Sudan, meaning ‘The Land of the Blacks’. In both cases, the area was defined as inhabited by people with a blackish complexion in contrast to the more fair-skinned people of the north. The Middle Nile Valley can be subdivided geographically into three smaller regions (Fig. 2). The southernmost region, Central Sudan, includes the riverine regions upstream from Mograt Island at the point where the northward flow of the river is interrupted by a huge bend towards the south west. The middle region, Upper Nubia, comprises the Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 54 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos Fig. 1. Small rapid between two islands in the Fourth Cataract. Photo: H. Hafsaas-Tsakos. area between Jebel Barkal in the south and the Dal Cataract in the north. The northernmost region, Lower Nubia, is situated between the Second Cataract in the south and the First Cataract in the north. This part of the Nile Valley is now completely submerged by the artificial Lake Nasser/Nubia. The three regions are separated by the cataracts, which were obstacles to travel on the river as well as along the rocky banks. The granite outcrops and large islands of the Fourth Cataract seem to have acted as a border region between Central Sudan and Upper Nubia. Likewise, the rocks and shoals of the Batn al-Hajar and the Second Cataract seem to have constituted a buffer zone between Upper and Lower Nubia. The Middle Nile Valley has been inhabited by a plurality of ethnic groups since prehistoric times. Based on the classifications of the material remains, archaeologists have differentiated between three distinctive cultural assemblages for the period between 2500 and 1500 BCE: C-Group, Kerma and Pan-Grave (see Hafsaas 2006:6–7 for a discussion of this classification). I have previously argued that these three archaeological assemblages should be considered as representing ethnic groups due to the characteristic material expressions, the unique adaptations to the environment and their different distributions in time and space (ibid. 5). The Kerma people were mainly living in Upper Nubia, and the so-called C-Group people inhabited Lower Nubia. The Pan-Grave people had a more random distribution in Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt during a shorter period of time – from c. 1800 to 1500 BCE. The Kerma people were the ethnic group that formed the Kingdom of Kush, so they will be the focus of discussion here (see Hafsaas 2006 for my treatise on the C-Group people). Nevertheless, cultural and geographical borders can be crossed, and both Egyptians and Southerners followed the Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 The Kingdom of Kush Fig. 2. Map of the Middle Nile Valley. Graphics: H. Hafsaas-Tsakos. north-south axis along the Nile, as well as the east-west axis through the adjacent deserts. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF KERMA Between 1913 and 1916, the American archaeologist George A. Reisner conducted the first excavations in the vicinity of the modern village of Kerma in Upper Nubia. The archaeological sites identified were an extensive urban settlement located on the east bank of the Nile and a vast burial ground with an estimation of more than 20,000 burials on the edge of the desert further to the east. The village of Kerma gave its name to both the ancient town and the people who had lived there. Reisner (1923) made the first classifications and interpretations of the material remains of the Kerma people. He interpreted the archaeological remains within the contemporary 55 colonial framework and suggested that Kerma was a fortified trading post governed by Egyptians dominating the native population (Reisner 1923:38). It took several decades before the Kerma people and their rulers were considered to be southerners and the site identified with Kush – a realm known from Egyptian inscriptions. The ancient town of Kerma is now generally accepted as the capital of Kush – the earliest kingdom we know of in Africa outside Egypt (Arkell 1955:83, Emery 1965:155, Trigger 1976:85, Bonnet 1983:38, Taylor 1991:21, Kendall 1997:2, Connah 2001[1987]:33, Edwards 2004:75). The assumption is based on the dimensions and complexity of the urban settlement, the enormous size and wealth of some of the burials in the cemetery, as well as written Egyptian sources. Since 1976, the University of Geneva has resumed the excavations at Kerma under the direction of Charles Bonnet (1992:613). The archaeologists have revealed remains from the extensive urban settlement and added reconstructions to the visible outlines of the mud brick buildings (Fig. 3). In addition to the 3000 graves dug by Reisner, another 350 tombs have been excavated by the Swiss team. The new investigations have added data that are augmenting our understandings of the Kerma people and the kingdom of Kush. CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE KERMA PERIOD The so-called Kerma Period in Upper Nubia lasted from 2500 to 1500 BCE, which falls within the Bronze Age (c. 3500–1200 BCE) of the wider Afro-Eurasian context. During this period, bronze came into widespread use among the elites of Upper Nubia, first in the form of imported objects from the north and then through the adoption of the technology of copper smelting and casting. Based on excavations in two Kerma cemeteries on Sai Island, the French archaeologist Brigitte Gratien (1978) proposed a chronology Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 56 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos Fig. 3. Parts of the urban settlement at Kerma with outlines of the mud brick buildings. Photo: H. Hafsaas-Tsakos. of the Kerma culture consisting of four phases: Early Kerma, Middle Kerma, Classic Kerma and Final Kerma. Recent reviews often tend to omit the last phase (see Bonnet 2004, Bonnet & Valbelle 2006). The absolute dates are based on the known age of Egyptian imports in Kerma contexts in combination with a limited number of C14 dates (see Bonnet 1986, Lacovara 1997, Bourriau 2004). The diachronic sequence of the Kerma Period largely corresponds with the timeframe of the C-Group people in Lower Nubia and the dynastic development in Ancient Egypt (Table 1). The close association of the shifts from one phase to the next between these three chronologies is probably a result of both the Egyptocentric mentality of the archaeologists as well as the parallel courses of development produced by crosscultural interactions in the past. The historical trajectories of the Egyptians and the Kerma people are linked due to a vibrant and dialectical relationship. I emphasize that the Kerma and C-Group people followed their own unique courses through time, since the southerners were growing strong when the Egyptians were weak and vice versa. THE TOWN AND CEMETERY OF KERMA The Dongola Reach between the Third and Fourth Cataracts is among the most fertile regions along the Middle Nile. A wide alluvial plain unfolds upstream of the rapids of The Kingdom of Kush 57 Table 1. The chronologies for Upper Nubia, Lower Nubia, and Egypt. Upper Nubia 2500 Early Kerma phase 2500–2050 BCE Lower Nubia Egypt Phase I/a 2500–2160 BCE Old Kingdom 2686–2160 BCE Phase I/b 2160–1985 BCE First Intermediate Period 2160–2055 BCE 2400 2300 2200 2100 2000 Middle Kerma phase 2050–1750 BCE Phase II/a 1985–1650 BCE Middle Kingdom 2055–1650 BCE Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 1900 1800 1700 Classic Kerma phase 1750–1500 BCE 1600 1500 Final Kerma phase to 1450 BCE Phase II/b 1650–1550 BCE New Kindom occupation Until c. 1200 BCE Second Intermediate Period 1650–1550 BCE New Kingdom Until 1069 BCE Sources: Bonnet (1992) and Edwards (2004) for Kerma; Hafsaas (2006) for the C-Group; Shaw (2000) for Egypt the Third Cataract, and Kerma is situated at the centre of this plain. The agricultural potential of this basin facilitated a higher concentration of people than possible along the other stretches of the Middle Nile, and this must have been one of the foundations for the rise of an urban centre at Kerma. During the Kerma Period, the savannah of Central Sudan extended further north into what are today the dry deserts lining the banks of the Dongola Reach. The bushes and seasonal grasslands of the savannah could support pastoralists with herds of cattle, sheep and goats. This gave opportunities for local exchanges in food stuff between pastoralists and agriculturalists (see Sadr 1991:98–99). The excavators suggest that the town of Kerma was established around 2400 BCE (Bonnet & Valbelle 2006:18). The settlement seems to have been initially located on an island in the Nile that gradually joined the mainland (Bonnet 2004:73), since the easternmost channel dried up due to the river’s constant shift towards the west. The town itself was surrounded by a defence system built of earth and stone (Bonnet & Valbelle 2006:18), perhaps as protection from raiding pastoralists from the hinterlands. The main feature of the town during the heyday of the Kingdom of Kush was the so-called Western Deffufa – a massive mudbrick structure which is still standing to a height of almost 20 metres (Fig. 4). The building has been interpreted as a temple, although the practices taking place there are virtually unknown. The Western Deffufa was isolated from the rest of the town by an enclosure wall. Several other structures have been excavated inside this fenced quarter. Among them are buildings interpreted as chapels, houses and workshops for bronze and faience (Bonnet 1992:614). The excavations of the settled area surrounding the Western Deffufa enclosure have revealed structures that the excavators have suggested Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 58 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos Fig. 4. The Western Deffufa at the centre of the urban settlement at Kerma. Photo: H. Hafsaas-Tsakos. to be the remains of royal and elite residences, an audience hall, religious buildings, storehouses, workshops, bakeries, barracks and houses for ordinary citizens. It seems that the huge cemetery was the necropolis of the inhabitants of the urban area at Kerma. Already some of the burials dating to the Early Kerma phase are very richly furnished, and this differentiation of wealth suggests the existence of a social hierarchy already at that time (Bonnet 2004:72). THE KINGDOM OF KUSH Shortly after 2000 BCE, contemporary Egyptian written sources reveal the existence of a kingdom called Kush. The earliest record we know is a stele that commemorates a military expedition into Upper Nubia (Trigger 1976:65, Kendall 1997:27). The text describes how the Egyptian soldiers set fire to the tents of the local population, threw their grain into the Nile and slew anyone getting in their way (Breasted 1962[1906]:249). The stele also depicts a scene in which ten bound captives inscribed with the names of ethnic groups or geographical places in the south are being presented to the Egyptian king (Arkell 1955:60). The geographical place name ‘Kush’ heads the lists, and this may suggest that Kush was the leading polity and perhaps already a rival to Egypt (Kemp 1983:134). Another written source for the existence of an advanced political organization in Upper Nubia is two execration texts dating to the reign of Senusret III (c. 1870–1831 BCE), which list men holding the title ‘Ruler of Kush’. The ruler in the earliest text has the same name as the father of the ruler in the Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 The Kingdom of Kush latter one, which suggests a transfer of power from father to son (Gratien 1978:295, Kendall 1997:28–29). It thus seems that the political power and probably also the economic resources were in the hands of one man – the king – and that this office was hereditary. The archaeological evidence also indicates accumulation of wealth and power by certain individuals from the Middle Kerma phase onwards. Some large tumuli located at the centre of the necropolis of Kerma date to this time, and cattle were sacrificed in large numbers as part of the funerary rituals for the individuals buried there. The largest of these monuments was around 30 metres in diameter, and more than 4500 skulls of cattle were placed to the south of the tumulus (Bonnet & Valbelle 2006:23). It is likely that these earliest monumental tumuli were built for the funerals of the first kings at Kerma (O’Connor 1993:39). The three largest tumuli in the cemetery, all with diameters of around 90 metres, date to the Classic Kerma phase (Reisner 1923:81, Bonnet 1983:44). The dimensions of the graves and the quantity of the offerings to the main burials suggest that these tumuli were the final resting places for the rulers. During this phase, human sacrifices largely displaced the cattle bucrania as offerings in the graves belonging to the upper strata of the population. In the central corridor of the three largest tumuli, between 100 and 400 individuals were buried alive, probably during the burial ceremonies for the kings (Reisner 1923:69–70). I propose that the human sacrifices were an eloquent way to display the kings’ absolute and divine powers through the satisfaction of their demand for the most precious grave gift – the offerings of humans. The influence of the kingdom seems to have spanned a wider region than the one around the capital at Kerma. It is however uncertain if the king had territorial control of the entire region occupied by people with a material culture that archaeologists now identify as ‘Kerman’. 59 From the evidence presented above, it seems that the Kerma people were ruled by a king and that the kingdom of Kush was a reality by 2000 BCE. This suggests that a secondary state formation had taken place on the Nile, since the kingdom emerged through the increasing contact with a more complex society – Egypt. Both the concept of kingship and the state formation process in Kush need to be explored further. After this initial introduction of the Kerma people and the Kingdom of Kush, I will now present a historical outline of the relationship s s between Kush and the North. THE BEGINNING OF EXCHANGES ALONG THE NILE From the beginning of the Bronze Age around 3500 BCE, one of Egypt’s most important trade routes followed the Nile south to Lower Nubia, where the Egyptians found middlemen – the so-called A-Group people – who provided exotic raw materials such as ivory, ebony, incense and exotic animal skins. The earliest indications of trade goods from the north reaching the regions south of the Second Cataract are some copper awls uncovered at an A-Group campsite in the Batn al-Hajar (Mills & Nordström 1966:6). A copper needle and two quartzite palettes have recently been uncovered from two burials dated to c. 3000 BCE in a Pre-Kerma cemetery close to Kerma (Honegger 2004:63), and some sherds from Egyptian pots have been excavated from a Pre-Kerma site on Sai Island dating to around 2700 BCE (Geus 2000:127). These commodities probably reached Upper Nubia through trickle trade mediated by the A-Group people in Lower Nubia. Several autobiographical accounts from the Tombs of the Nobles at Aswan in Egypt refer to trade expeditions to Upper Nubia from around 2300 BCE (Goedicke 1981). At Kerma, imported Egyptian pottery and the introduction of mud brick for building purposes are Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 60 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos indicators of the beginning of both commercial and cultural exchanges from this time onwards (Valbelle 2004:92). The introduction of prestigious manufactured imports from the north is also evident in form of the copper daggers and mirrors that were deposited as grave goods at Kerma from c. 2100 BCE (Lacovara 1997:77). Several stone vases inscribed with the names of Egyptian kings have been uncovered in the town of Kerma. In one of the rooms of a building close to the Western Deffufa, Reisner (1923:30) uncovered sherds from at least 25 different alabaster jars inscribed with the cartouches of Pepy I (2321–2287 BCE). The total number of fragments of stone vessels from this area amounts to nearly 500 (ibid. 32). Alabaster jars were commonly used as containers for perfumed oils, and an Old Kingdom written source reports that this was one of the commodities in demand in the south (see Breasted 1962[1906]:198). The stone vessels with names of Egyptian kings were most likely gifts sent to the local chieftains by the Egyptian kings in order to establish good relations between the sovereigns and thus facilitate the flow of trade. Although the alabaster jars were Egyptian manufactures, I assume that the aromatic contents originated from the olive groves in the Central Palestinian Mountains. Moreover, it is probable that the Egyptian pots uncovered in Upper Nubia were imported for their contents, since the Kerma people made excellent pottery of high artistic and functional quality. I propose that wine and olive oil were processed luxury foodstuffs that were in demand among the elites in Upper Nubia. These commodities reached the region from exchange networks outside the Nile Valley, since large supplies of wine and olive oil were traded to Egypt from the Central Palestinian Mountains (see HafsaasTsakos in press a). However, chemical analyses of the residues on the pots and stone vessels will be necessary in order to verify this hypothesis. THE EGYPTIAN EXPANSION TO THE SOUTH During the turbulent years of the First Intermediate Period, the interaction between Egypt and Upper Nubia seems to have ceased. An examination of the Egyptian potsherds uncovered during the Swiss excavations in the cemetery at Kerma could not identify any sherds as belonging to pots produced during this period (see Bourriau 2004). At the same time, Egyptian imports reached a peak in the graves of the pastoral C-Group people of Lower Nubia (Hafsaas-Tsakos in press b). It appears that more attractive trading partners in Upper Nubia were out of range for a weakened Egyptian state, so that the trade had to be mediated though the C-Group people. Thus, when Egypt was reunited around 2055 BCE, one of the main aspirations of the ruling king was to re-establish direct trade relations with Upper Nubia. In order to facilitate the flow of raw materials from the south, the Egyptians conquered Lower Nubia over a period of 20 years and incorporated the region into Egypt. However, the C-Group pastoralists apparently continued their traditional way of life without much interference from the Egyptians (Hafsaas 2006:141). The Egyptian occupation of the river valley in Lower Nubia focused upon maintaining stable access to exotic commodities through the control of the trade on and along the river. As a result, the C-Group people were deprived of their role as middlemen. Egypt’s southern border was initially established at Buhen below the Second Cataract c. 1938 BCE (Callender 2000:161), but it was soon moved further south to Semna in the Batn al-Hajar (ibid. 166). The Egyptians constructed a chain of fortresses between the First Cataract and the Batn al-Hajar in order to supervise the riverine traffic and monitor the local population, as well as patrol and explore the deserts (Fig. 5). The motivation for the Egyptian expansion was to take control of the trade in slaves and African exotics Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 The Kingdom of Kush 61 Fig. 5. Arial photo of the fortress of Shelfak in the Batn al-Hajar, one of two Egyptian fortresses that are not completely submerged by the artificial Lake Nasser. Photo: H. Hafsaas-Tsakos. such as ebony, ivory, incense, ostrich eggs and feathers, and hides from wild animals, as well as to obtain raw materials such as gold, copper and precious stones. All these commodities were also in demand among the elites in the wider Bronze Age world. Examples of how far away the products from northern Sudan reached are some ostrich eggs that were uncovered from one of the shaft graves at Mycenae in Greece (Kardulias 1999:194). In my opinion, it is, on the one hand, doubtful that the Egyptians at this time exercised any territorial control over Lower Nubia, so the fortresses north of the Second Cataract were probably constructed for overseeing transactions, controlling the trade corridor, and for resource exploitation. On the other hand, the Egyptians appear to have occupied the Second Cataract area and obtained full control over the border region between the C-Group and the Kerma peoples. With the occupation of the Second Cataract, Egypt and the Kingdom of Kush came into direct contact, which led to a prospering trade on and along the Nile. The kings of Kush profited from their strategic role as middlemen in the trade of African exotics with Egypt, and the Kushite rulers seem to have forged alliances with local chieftains further south in order to obtain the raw materials in demand. According to the Egyptian boundary stele at Semna, the Kerma people were not allowed to travel north of the fortress of Iken upstream of the Second Cataract (Emery 1965:157), so this should probably be understood as the place where the commodities changed hands. I suggest that the Egyptian fortresses acted as an effective barrier, which prevented contact between the C-Group and 62 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos the Kerma peoples. This argument is strengthened by the absence of evidence during the period of Egyptian occupation for the Kerma people penetrating north of the Second Cataract or the C-Group people wandering south. Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 POLITICAL FRAGMENTATION IN EGYPT Shortly after 1800 BCE, an influx of immigrants from south-west Asia started settling in the Delta region of Lower Egypt (Bietak 1991:29). From this time onwards, the kings of Egypt seem to lose their grip on the territory in an escalating process. The Egyptian kings abandoned their fortresses in Lower Nubia and the Second Cataract around 1725 BCE (Callender 2000:172) – probably due to the lack of resources to maintain the personnel stationed at these outposts of the Egyptian state. As a result, Egypt lost control over its main trade route to the south together with a reliable flow of exotic commodities and raw materials. The migrant population from south-west Asia established an independent kingdom with their capital at Avaris in the eastern Delta (Bietak 1991:28). This is probably one of the reasons why in 1685 BCE the Egyptians abandoned their capital Itjtawy near modern Cairo (see Bourriau 2000:190). Afterwards, a diminished Egyptian state centred on Thebes in Upper Egypt. The Asiatic kings at Avaris were later called by the Greek term ‘Hyksos’ after the original Egyptian title ‘Hekau Khasut’, which meant ‘Rulers of foreign countries’ (Bourriau 2000:187). The Hyksos rapidly seized the other essential trade route of Egypt, the lucrative connections with south-west Asia along the Mediterranean coast as well as over the land bridge of the Sinai. From their strategic position in the Delta, the Hyksos controlled Egypt’s connections with the Eurasian part of the Bronze Age network of exchange. Moreover, the Hyksos kings took advantage of the collapse of central authority in Egypt by expanding southwards. The aim was probably to take control of the trade on the Nile as well, which remained impossible for as long as they were positioned only along one of the eastern branches of the Nile delta. The Hyksos expansion southwards was successful, and the new border of the Hyksos kingdom was established at Cusae in Middle Egypt around 1650 BCE (Bourriau 2000:201). This event marks the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period, when three independent kingdoms existed along the Nile with kings ruling from Avaris, Thebes and Kerma respectively (Fig. 6). The contemporary organization of chiefdoms among the C-Group people in Lower Nubia suggests that minor chiefs asserted themselves as well. PROSPERITY OF THE KINGDOM OF KUSH During this period of political fragmentation in Egypt, the prosperity of the Kingdom of Kush reached its peak. The king was now in control of the gold mines in the Batn alHajar as well as the trade routes to the exotic materials in the south. The imported objects uncovered at Kerma testify that the Kushite kings were engaged in trade with both the Hyksos and the Thebans (see Bourriau 2004:8 for the pottery). Archaeological evidence suggests that, after the retreat of the Egyptians, the territory of Lower Nubia was once more in the hands of the C-Group people, while the king of Kush seized control of the Egyptian fortresses in the frontier area of the Second Cataract (Hafsaas 2006:142–143). The border between Upper and Lower Nubia was open, and interactions between the Kerma and the C-Group peoples flourished. Cultural influences from Kerma are now evident in the burial practices of the C-Group people. Building of offering chapels in the cemeteries and sacrifices of animals during the burial ceremonies were Kerma traditions that were foreign to the C-Group people. Both archaeological and written sources point to direct contact between the southerners Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 The Kingdom of Kush 63 Fig. 7. Tell Yahudiya juglet from Ukma. Photo: H. Hafsaas-Tsakos. Printed with permission from the National Corporation of Museums of Antiquities, Sudan. Fig. 6. Map of the Nile Valley during the Second Intermediate Period. Graphic: H. Hafsaas-Tsakos. and the Hyksos people via the Western Desert oases (see Hafsaas 2006:143–145 with references). The intensification of the exchange between Kush and the north through the Hyksos kings is documented by the increase of imported commodities in the graves at Kerma (Lacovara 1997:78). The socalled Tell Yahudiya juglets, which are found on several sites in Upper Nubia, are perhaps the most conspicuous Hyksos commodities in the archaeological record (Fig. 7). These juglets were produced both at the Hyksos capital Avaris and in Palestine from where the Hyksos people had migrated (see Bietak 1991). Other remains from the trade with the Hyksos are also found in the town of Kerma. In two deep shafts near the Western Deffufa, Reisner uncovered deposits that contained more than 765 seal impressions from 133 Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 64 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos different seals. Five of the seals were inscribed with the royal names of Hyksos kings, while the shape and decoration of the other seals also date them to the Second Intermediate Period (Reisner 1923:28). It was at this time that the so-called Kerma beakers were made, most probably at a production centre at Kerma. The beakers have a wide distribution in the Middle Nile Valley, and I suggest as a preliminary hypothesis that they may have been gifts distributed through a network of clients under the patronage of the king of Kush. The beakers were probably drinking vessels that were used during feasting where both local and imported alcoholic beverages were consumed. The Kerma beakers were probably used both to signify a common cultural identity and to establish social hierarchies (see Hafsaas 2006–2007:169–170 for a parallel discussion for the C-Group people). The growing political power of Kush is demonstrated by the building of massive tumuli in the cemetery of Kerma, where the kings were buried accompanied by large numbers of human sacrifices (see above). The prosperity of the kingdom can be related to the transfer of the control of the trade from the Egyptian central authority to the king of Kush, followed by an increase in potential exchange partners due to the fragmentation of Egypt. Previously, the Egyptians had acted as intermediaries in all contact with the north. With the Egyptian retreat from the Middle Nile Valley, the Kushites were able to establish trade relations with the Hyksos and the C-Group people independently from the Thebans. The Egyptians were obviously dissatisfied with their inferior position in the trade networks, but they were at first unable to change the state of affairs to their own advantage. THE WAR BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH The relations between Egypt and Kush inevitably became tense, especially from 1580 BCE onwards. A recently uncovered tomb inscription in Egypt describes an attack on Upper Egypt by the king of Kush and a group of allies, among them also the C-Group people (Davies 2003:52). Egyptian statues, stelae and alabaster vessels from the Old Kingdom have been uncovered from the royal tumuli at Kerma, as well as from the town site. These objects were already several centuries old and most likely originated from Kushite tomb robbing in Egypt (Lacovara 1991:118, Edwards 2004:80). War booty from Upper Egypt also seemed to end up in C-Group graves (see HafsaasTsakos in press b). In the two tumuli at the Kerma necropolis that have been interpreted as belonging to the last kings of Kush, imports from the north decrease. This indicates an escalation of conflict and aggression between the Egyptians, the Hyksos and the Kerma people (Lacovara 1997:78). A succession of kings in Upper Egypt waged war in order to expand their territory to its former ‘glorious state’. The driving force was to regain direct access to the Mediterranean trade routes as well as to the mineral wealth and the exotic raw materials in the south (Manley 1996:54). The war was instigated around 1555 BCE (Bourriau 2000:210). In response, the kings of Kush seem to have started an aggressive expansion policy towards the north and attempted to incorporate Lower Nubia into their territory. As a result, the chiefs of the C-Group people turned to the Theban kings for support, and they apparently accepted an alliance with Upper Egypt in order to avoid being the subordinates of the king of Kush (Hafsaas 2006:145). Through their cooperation with the C-Group chiefs, the Theban kings recaptured the fortresses of the Second Cataract region shortly before 1550 BCE and secured their southern border towards attacks from the Kushites. The Delta and Avaris were re-conquered from the Hyksos around 1530 BCE (see Bietak 1991:48–49), and Egypt proper was reunited. Then the Egyptians turned their The Kingdom of Kush attention to the threat from the south. The Kushites were finally subdued in a major campaign launched around 1500 BCE. For the next 300 years, Lower and Upper Nubia were part of Egypt’s vast New Kingdom Empire. I shall now turn from the historical outline of the relations with the north to the more precise argumentation for including Kush in the wider exchange networks in Bronze Age Afro-Eurasia. Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 THE KINGDOM OF KUSH AND THE BRONZE AGE WORLD SYSTEM Most researchers have emphasized the Asian and European contributions to the formation and continuation of the Bronze Age World System, while the African connections have been largely ignored. I stress that Egypt was an important centre from the beginning of the Bronze Age with the Middle Nile Valley to the south as one of its peripheries. From this hinterland desirable resources for exchange and elite consumption were being extracted (see also Anfinset 2005, Wengrow 2006). The societies in the Middle Nile Valley have been treated as even more isolated than Egypt and have been marginalized in relation to the Bronze Age World System. On the one hand, the anthropologically oriented Egyptologist Stuart Tyson Smith (1998:262) argues that the rise of the Kingdom of Kush represented – although to a ‘limited extent’ – a shift from periphery to centre. On the other hand, the proponents of the Bronze Age World System have simply overlooked the development of a centre in northern Sudan due to Eurasian biases. Even centre-periphery perspectives employed on inter-regional relations in the Nile Valley still consider the lands to the south of Egypt as a passive periphery without considerations of the establishment of a centre through the agency and entrepreneurial spirits of the local populations (see Flammini 2008 as the last in a long sequence of Egyptocentric studies of interaction along the Nile corridor). 65 The commodities that the Kerma people supplied the northern markets with included gold, precious stones, ebony, incense, as well as products from wild animals such as ivory, ostrich eggs and feathers, and hides. The exchange with the north also led to a commoditization of people through the exchange of humans and the institutionalization of slavery (see Kopytoff 1986:64–65). The Egyptians were not the only consumers of the ‘African exotics’, since they distributed the goods deriving from the south further through their trading partners in the Eastern Mediterranean. In exchange for the raw materials, the kings of Kush demanded processed luxury goods, which were produced both in Egypt and further away, such as metal objects, stone vessels, faience jewellery, olive oil, wine and clothing. A next step for further research is to investigate how and why some commodities or practices from the north were adopted by the Kerma people, while other objects and influences were rejected or turned into arenas of contest (see Dietler 1998:298). In my opinion, archaeologists have underestimated the relations that the people of Kush had with the outside world. The African connections provided exotic consumables for the markets of the privileged in the Bronze Age world, while the elite at Kerma obtained manufactured commodities as well as prestigious new technology from the north. Through this cross-cultural interaction, the Kingdom of Kush participated in the greater Afro-Eurasian world system for exchanges of commodities, ideas and people. FROM PERIPHERY TO CENTRE Long-distance trade with Egypt seems to have been essential for the emergence and prosperity of the Kingdom of Kush. After the formation of the Kingdom of Kush around 2000 BCE, the Kerma people assumed a leading role in the exchanges with the north. As a consequence, they also initiated more intensive relations with peoples to the south, east and west in order to obtain raw Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 66 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos materials for their own consumption as well as for trading purposes. The capital Kerma was located at an embarking point for the overland trade routes connecting Darfur and Kordofan in the south west with the Nile Valley. This position created exceptional opportunities for the accumulation of wealth, while the organization and administration of trade were stimuli for elaborating the political organization. The control of the trade networks with the north and the distribution of prestigious commodities among their subordinates, as well as the procurement of raw materials from the south through exchange and raiding, appear to have given an impetus to the emergence of the kingdom (see Edwards 1998:193). In order to command the trade routes and secure the influx of raw materials, the kings of Kerma also had to control the pastoralists in the hinterland – either through military force or through alliances (see Trigger 1985:470). Research should now be promoted and directed towards the role of Kush in its regional setting. The contact with the Egyptians was only one of the external influences on the Kerma people and the Kingdom of Kush. It is now time for the relations between the peoples of the Middle Nile and peoples in Central Sudan to the south, the deserts and the wadi systems to the west, and the Red Sea Hills and the Gash Delta to the east to be explored. Kush was not totally dependent on Egypt for precious objects for elite consumption and display. The relations with the north also inspired specialized production at Kerma, where local craftsmen made razors and daggers of bronze, faience vessels, wooden furniture decorated with carved figures of mica and ivory, as well as pots of high artistic value. These prestige commodities seem to have been distributed by the kings of Kush to local elites in Upper Nubia, and this gift-giving further facilitated the establishment of alliances with subordinate chiefs in order to obtain control of the trade corridor. I propose that the uncovering of imports and prestige items of local manufacture in the hinterland of Kerma, such as the Fourth Cataract region, indicates that the king of Kush distributed costly gifts to local chiefs in order to gain their allegiance. In return, the allies were most likely obliged to provide the king with tribute – possibly consisting of raw materials, livestock and slaves. I therefore suggest that the large amount of cattle bucrania that were offered to the dead kings at Kerma came from slaughtered animals that were obtained through levies from subordinate chiefs of pastoral groups. Furthermore, slaves and exotic African products from further south were probably obtained through raiding in territories outside the Kushite sphere. Kerma was a centre with its own hinterland, like Egypt and other core areas of the Bronze Age World System. Furthermore, the historical outline demonstrated that Kush was not merely a periphery that could be exploited for raw materials, but a rival that competed with Egypt for the control of the trade routes. The evidence for the existence of specialized production at Kerma and the existence of a social hierarchy in Kush fulfil the definition of a core according to Wallerstein (1974:102). Kerma and Kush should thus be included as a centre in the Bronze Age World System. CONCLUSIONS The trade relations between the Kingdom of Kush and Egypt seem to be an early instance of the exchange of manufactured commodities for raw materials, which is a characteristic feature of world system exchange between centres and peripheries. The Kingdom of Kush prospered from its incorporation into the Bronze Age World System, although the exchanges between Kush and Egypt were rather asymmetrical. Nevertheless, the relations seem to have been between Bronze Age elites without affecting the lives of common The Kingdom of Kush people to such an extent as the Modern World System with its developed and underdeveloped parts. Through its connections with the north, Kush flourished as the first polity in a long sequence of state formations in the Middle Nile Valley that based their power on the control of trade routes. My conclusion is that the Kingdom of Kush was not only a resource-rich periphery of Egypt, but a centre on the southernmost periphery of the Bronze Age World System of AfroEurasia. Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The first draft of this article was submitted to and presented at the PhD symposium ‘Material Culture, Identity, and Globalization’ in Aarhus in October 2007, and I received stimulating responses from professors Kristian Kristiansen, Helle Vandkilde and Richard Hingley, as well as the other participants. My supervisors, professors Randi Haaland and Tim Insoll, always suggest interesting literature and inspire me to see more than the local context. The National Corporation for Museums and Antiquities in Sudan gave me permissions to visit sites and study the materials in the National Museum. The final version of the article was written during two research trips to Sudan in November 2007 and January–May 2008, financed by the Meltzer Fund at the University of Bergen and the Nordic Africa Institute. I wish to thank the pilot Bjarne Giske for the opportunities to see northern Sudan from a bird’s perspective and Nadia el-Maaroufi from Safari Sudan for the excursions. Finally, I am grateful to Alexandros Tsakos for motivation, stimulating discussions, language corrections, distractions and the life-changing journey to Kerma and Tombos. NOTES 1 BCE and CE are abbreviations for ‘before the common era’ and ‘common era’ respectively. The Common Era refers to the most used calendar 67 and year-numbering system world-wide, namely the Gregorian calendar, but without the religious connotations of BC and AD. REFERENCES Abu-Lughod, J. 1989. Before European Hegemony. The World System A.D. 1250–1350. Oxford University Press, New York. Algaze, G. 1989. The Uruk expansion – crosscultural exchange in Early Mesopotamian civilization. Current Anthropology 30, 571–608. Algaze, G. 1993. Expansionary dynamics of some early pristine states. American Anthropologist 95(2), 304–333. Anfinset, N. 2005. Secondary products, pastoral nomads and the introduction of metal. The 5th and 4th millennia BC in the Southern Levant and Northeast Africa. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Bergen. Arkell, A. J. 1955. A History of the Sudan. From the Earliest Times to 1821. Athlone Press, London. Barrett, J. C. 1998. The politics of scale and the experience of distance. The Bronze Age World System. In Larsson, L. & Stjernquist, B. (eds). The World-View of Prehistoric Man, pp. 13–25. Kunglige Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Stockholm. Bietak, M. 1991. Egypt and Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281, 27–72. Blanton, R. & Feinman, G. 1984. The Mesoamerican World System. American Anthropologist 86, 673–682. Bonnet, C. 1983. Kerma. An African Kingdom of the 2nd and 3rd millennia B.C. Archaeology 36(6), 38–45. Bonnet, C. 1986. Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan). Genava 34, 5–20. Bonnet, C. 1992. Excavations at the Nubian royal town of Kerma. 1975–91. Antiquity 66, 611–625. Bonnet, C. 2004. The Kerma Culture. In Welsby, D. A. & Anderson, J. R. (eds). Sudan – Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum, pp. 70–82. The British Museum Press, London. Bonnet, C. & Valbelle, D. 2006. The Nubian Pharaos. Black Kings on the Nile. The American University in Cairo Press, Cairo. Bourriau, J. 2000. The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1650–1550 BC). In Shaw, I. (ed.). The Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 68 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, pp. 185–217. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bourriau, J. 2004. Egyptian pottery found in Kerma Ancien, Kerma Moyen and Kerma Classique graves at Kerma. In Kendall, T. (ed.). Nubian Studies 1998. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society of Nubian Studies. Department of AfricanAmerican Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. Breasted, J. H. 1962 [1906]. Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. 1. Russell & Russell, New York. Callender, G. 2000. The Middle Kingdom Renaissance. In Shaw, I. (ed.). The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, pp. 148–183. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Chase-Dunn, C. & Hall, T. D. (eds) 1991. Core/ Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Chase-Dunn, C. & Hall, T. D. 1994. The historical evolution of world-systems. Sociological Inquiry 64(3), 257–280. Connah, G. 2001 [1987]. African Civilizations. An Archaeological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Davies, V. W. 2003. Kush in Egypt. A new historical inscription. Sudan & Nubia 7, 52–54. Denemark, R. A., Friedman, J., Gills, B. K. & Modelski, G. 2000. An introduction to world system history. Towards a social science of longterm change. In Denemark, R. A., Friedman, J., Gills, B. K. & Modelski, G. (eds). World System History. The Social Science of Long-term Change, pp. xv–xxii. Routledge, London. Dietler, M. 1998. Consumption, agency, and cultural entanglement. Theoretical implications of a Mediterranean colonial encounter. In Cusick, J. G. (ed.). Studies in Culture Contact. Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, pp. 288– 315. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. Edens, C. 1992. Dynamics of trade in the Ancient Mesopotamian World System. American Anthropologist 94(1), 118–139. Edens, C. M. & Kohl, P. L. 1993. Trade and world system in Early Bronze Age Western Asia. In Scarre, C. & Healy, F. (eds). Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, pp. 17–34. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Edwards, D. 1998. Meroe and the Sudanic Kingdoms. Journal of African History 39, 175–193. Edwards, D. 2004. The Nubian Past. An Archaeology of the Sudan. Routledge, London. Ekholm, K. & Friedman, J. 1979. ‘Capital’, imperialism and exploitation in ancient world systems. In Larsen, M. T. (ed.). Power and Propaganda. A Symposium on Ancient Empires, pp. 41–58. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen. Emery, W. B. 1965. Egypt in Nubia. Hutchinson, London. Flammini, R. 2008. Ancient core-periphery interactions. Lower Nubia during Middle Kingdom Egypt (ca. 2050–1640 B.C.). Journal of WorldSystems Research 14(1), 50–74. Frank, A. G. 1993. Bronze Age World System cycles. Current Anthropology 34(4), 383–429. Frank, A. G. & Gills, B. K. 1993. (eds) The World System. Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand? Routledge, London. Frank, A. G. & Gills, B. K. 2000. The five thousand year world system in theory and praxis. In Denemark, R. A., Friedman, J., Gills, B. K. & Modelski, G. (eds). World System History. The Social Science of Long-term Change, pp. 3–23. Routledge, London. Frank, A. G. & Thompson, W. R. 2005. AfroEurasian Bronze Age economic expansion and contraction revisited. Journal of World History 16(2), 115–172. Geus, F. 2000. Geomorphology and prehistory of Sai Island (Nubia). Report on a current research project. In Kr0yzaniak, L., Kroeper, K. & Kobusiewicz, M. (eds). Recent Research into the Stone Age of Northeastern Africa, pp. 119–128. Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznan. Goedicke, H. 1981. Harkhuf’s travels. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 40(1), 1–20. Gratien, B. 1978. Les Cultures Kerma. Essai de Classification. Publications de l’Université de Lille, Lille. Hafsaas, H. 2006. Cattle pastoralists in a multicultural setting. The C-Group people of Lower Nubia 2500–1500 BCE. The Lower Jordan River Basin Programme Publications 10. University of Bergen & Bir Zeit University, Ramallah. Hafsaas, H. 2006–2007. Pots and people in an anthropological perspective. The C-Group people of Lower Nubia as a case study. Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille 26, 163–171. Hafsaas-Tsakos, H. in press a. The origins of consumption and prohibition of wine. A case-study Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 The Kingdom of Kush from Ancient Palestine. In Naguib, N. (ed.). Foodways in the Middle East. Hafsaas-Tsakos, H. in press b. Between Kush and Egypt. The C-Group people of Lower Nubia during the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. In Between the Cataracts. Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian Studies, part two. Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw. Honegger, M. 2004. The Pre-Kerma period. In Welsby, D. A. & Anderson, J. R. (eds). Sudan – Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum, pp. 61–66. The British Museum Press, London. Kardulias, P. N. 1999. Multiple levels in the Aegean Bronze Age World System. In Kardulias, N. (ed.). World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, pp. 179–201. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. Kemp, B. J. 1983. Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period c. 2686–1552. In Trigger, B. G., Kemp, B. J., O’Connor, D. & Lloyd, A. B. Ancient Egypt – A Social History, pp. 71–182. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kendall, T. 1997. Kerma and the Kingdom of Kush 2500–1500 B.C. The Archaeological Discovery of an Ancient Nubian Empire. National Museum of African Art, Washington, DC. Kohl, P. L. 1978. The balance of trade in southwestern Asia in the mid-third millennium B.C. Current Anthropology 19(3), 463–492. Kohl, P. L. 1987. The ancient economy, transferable technologies, and the Bronze Age world system. A view from the northeastern frontier of the ancient Near East. In Larsen, M., Rowlands, M. & Kristiansen, K. (eds). Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, pp. 13–24. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biography of things. Commoditization as process. In Appadurai, A. (ed.). The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, pp. 64–91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kristiansen, K. 1998. The emergence of the European World System in the Bronze Age. Divergence, convergence, and social evolution during the first and second millennium B.C. In Kristiansen, K. & Rowlands, M. (eds). Social Transformations in Archaeology. Global and Local Perspectives, pp. 287–323. Routledge, London. 69 Lacovara, P. 1991. The stone vase deposit at Kerma. In Davies, W. V. (ed.). Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, pp. 118–128. British Museum Press, London. Lacovara, P. 1997. Egypt and Nubia during the Second Intermediate Period. In Oren, E. D. (ed.). The Hyksos. New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, pp. 69–86. The University Museum, Philadelphia, PA. Manley, B. 1996. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt. Penguin, London. Mills, A. J. & Nordström, H. Å. 1966. The archaeological survey from Gemai to Dal. Preliminary report on the season 1964–65. Kush 14, 1–15. O’Connor, D. 1993. Ancient Nubia – Egypt’s Rival in Africa. The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Pailes, R. & Whitecotton, J. 1979. The Greater Southwest and Meso-American ‘World’ System. An exploratory model of frontier relationships. In Savage, W. & Thompson, S. (eds). The Frontier. Comparative Studies 2, pp. 105–121. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Ratnagar, S. 2001. The Bronze Age – unique instance of a pre-industrial world system? Current Anthropology 42(3), 351–379. Reisner, G. A. 1923. Excavations at Kerma I–III. Harvard African Studies 5. Rice, P. M. 1998. Contexts of contact and change. Peripheries, frontiers, and boundaries. In Cusick, J. G. (ed.). Studies in Culture Contact. Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. Sadr, K. 1991. The Development of Nomadism in Ancient Northeast Africa. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA. Sanderson, S. K. (ed.) 1995. Civilizations and World Systems. Studying World-Historical Change. Alta Mira, Walnut Creek, CA. Schneider, J. 1977. Was there a pre-capitalist world system? Peasant Studies 6, 20–29. Shaw, I. (ed.) 2000. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sherratt, A. 1993. What would a Bronze-Age world system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1, 1–57. Sherratt, A. 2000. Envisioning global change. A long-term perspective. In Denemark, R. A., Friedman, J., Gills, B. K. & Modelski, G. (eds). World System History. The Social Science of Downloaded By: [University of Bergen] At: 08:20 24 June 2009 70 Henriette Hafsaas-Tsakos Long-term Change, pp. 115–132. Routledge, London. Sindbæk, S. M. 2007. The small world of the Vikings. Networks in early medieval communication and exchange. Norwegian Archaeological Review 40(1), 59–74. Smith, M. E. 2004. The archaeology of ancient state economies. Annual Review of Anthropology 33, 73–102. Smith, S. T. 1998. Nubia and Egypt. Interaction, acculturation, and secondary state formation from the third to first millennium B.C. In Cusick, J. (ed.). Studies in Culture Contact. Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, pp. 256–287. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. Taylor, J. H. 1991. Egypt and Nubia. British Museum Press, London. Trigger, B. G. 1976. Nubia under the Pharaohs. Thames & Hudson, London. Trigger, B. G. 1985. Land and trade as patterns in Sudanese history. In Liverani, M., Palmieri, A. & Perone, R. (eds). Studio di Paletnologia in Onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi, pp. 465–475. La Sapienza, Roma. Valbelle, D. 2004. Egyptians on the Middle Nile. In Welsby, D. A. & Anderson, J. R. (eds). Sudan – Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum, pp. 92–99. The British Museum Press, London. Vandkilde, H. 2004. Archaeology, anthropology and globalization. Inaugural lecture, University of Århus, 22 October. Available at: http:// www.aal.au.dk/global/nyheder/papers/paperfiler/ forelaesuk Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press, New York. Wallerstein, I. 1979. A world system perspective on the social sciences. In Wallerstein, I. (ed.). The Capitalist World Economy, pp. 152–164. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wallerstein, I. 1980. The Modern World-System. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750. Academic Press, New York. Wallerstein, I. 1989. The Modern World-System. The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730–1840s. Academic Press, New York. Wengrow, D. 2006. The Archaeology of Early Egypt. Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.