Napata was an ancient Nubian civilization located around modern-day Karima. The city is rarely discussed in African history, but it influenced the kingdom of Nubia in many ways as a very important religious center. There are few proven historical facts about the Napatan period, but historians do know enough to form a general idea of what the kingdom may have looked like, how it may have functioned, and how it influenced the rest of Africa.
Napata was in existence between 1000 and 250 BC and was one of the first main capitals of Kush. Founded by Tuthmosis III, Napata was home to the Karmah culture and drew its wealth from rich agriculture, gold, cattle, and trading practices along the Nile River. The Napatan culture was highly Egyptianized because of its relationship with Egypt through its conquerors. It somehow coexisted with Meroë, another civilization of Kush that existed during the same time, until, in 760, the Napatan kingship relocated to Meroë because of southern advantages. From then on, Napata became an autonomous area.
…show more content…
Resultingly, I had to do further research from which I found the information for my diorama. Apparently, the sites of Jebel Barkal and the Temple of Amun, both in Sudan, are where the city of Napata was located. My research also revealed that Kushite rulers were buried in this location, which probably means that it was comparable to the city of Meroë in trade, conduct, and tradition. From that information, I assumed that the residential life, government, and building structures of Napata were similar to those of Meroë. In my diorama, I am depicting the Temple of Amun at Jebel as it could have looked like during its
‘The Hyksos forced Egyptian Pharaohs to look beyond their own borders, and involve themselves in the affairs and lives of their neighbor’s’ Through the notion of looking beyond their own borders, the necessity of constant battles was not only to expand but also protect Egypt’s borders, this eventually led to the image of the ‘Warrior Pharaoh’. Egypt became the pre-eminent power in the east due to talented civil, military and religious bureaucracies. The Hyksos ‘encouraged new nationalism and patriotism’ this could be seen through formation of administration, stable rule, gods and building externally while taking on board the establishment of the extensive diplomatic and trading contacts with the eastern Mediterranean region and Nubia. The economic influences created by the Hyksos include various influences that furthermore excelled New Kingdom Egypt to be a greater society. The ‘foreign rulers’ introduced olive and pomegranate trees as well as domesticated cattle to the agricultural practices to Egyptian society.
There were buildings found with complex drainage systems and wide, paved streets, perfect for merchants, showing sophistication unlike anything else from that time. The city was well planned and organized, and the size of some of the buildings indicate that they may have been used for religious or administrative purposes. The architecture is similar to that found on Crete, which is evidence of cultural diffusion between the two places, and their possible influence on each other. Crete-like architecture shows a trade route and influence from Crete, which means historians can find more connections between the Minoans on Crete and the Minoans in Akrotiri, which we would have not gained otherwise.
Mali and Egypt are both ancient African civilizations. Besides both being ancient African civilizations they also have many other similarities. There are some differences as well between the two civilizations. Similarities and differences can be found in many aspects of the civilizations such as: geography, history, culture, and science and technology. The time period focused on in this essay of ancient Mali is around 1328 A.D., and the time period focused on of ancient Egypt is around 1300 B.C.
The locations of both of these civilizations has guided them through survival and existence. Ancient Egypt was located near the Nile River, which produced a fertile area in the middle of a desert. The people relied on this sector for two effects, which were food and water and the environment
One reason why I think Egypt was more unified, was the gift of the Nile. In my personal opinion people are products of their environment. The Nile, was one element that made living for a large population possible. The laid back atmosphere led the people to come together to create simple, but efficient ways of fertilizing the ground; furthermore, the fertile rich area allowed prosperity in crops and gave everyone piece of mind that they were not going to starve. (text, 73) On the other hand, Mesopotamia’s two rivers the Tigris and Euphrates, required people to create ways of irrigation to make the land more fertile for crops. (text, 59) The overall view of Mesopotamia’s greed arose from the possibility of loosing crops due to the floods. (text, 59) In other words, the land did not provide a great guara...
Although the kings of both lands were closely tied to religious institutions they had very different responsibilities to their people because of the culture of their location. The major point that differentiates Mesopotamia and Egypt is their location. The fact that Egypt was located in the most productive area of ancient times caused Egyptian pharaohs to focus more on their internal concerns, rather than gain new territories. The idea of Ma’at played a big role in the way of the pharaohs ruling over Egypt. Instead of expanding, they were more worried about having harmony and peace within the people, and keeping the balance of ma’at.
Although the ancestors of the Anasazi’s were nomadic people, the Anasazi began to settle and live in one place. Making it harder for them to roam and tend to their gardens and crops at the same time, farming became a staple of their ...
... use of foreign artistic motifs by the developing elite of the Nagada III period, but do not see Mesopotamian inspiration as a prime catalyst in Egypt’s developing complexity. The motivations behind contact between late Predynastic Egypt and Mesopotamia remain uncertain but may have included the trade for gold that occurred in the desert regions east of southern Egypt.
Political conditions at that time had begun to influence Egyptian religion as well. During the prosperous reigns of Thotmes III (1490-1436 B.C.) and Amenhotep II (1436-1412 B.C.), Egypt had expanded its frontiers in all directions and the nation was becoming increasingly difficult to govern. Egypt was the richest state in the world and Pharaoh represented the supreme power behind Egyptian prosperity. Annexed territories that belonged to Nubia and Syria were fully engaged in trade with the empire and the idea of a supreme and unique ruler was in perfect agreement with the idea of a supreme and unique god. In fact, the so-called revolution of Akhenaten is now thought to have been a political rather than a religious movement, a reaction to events outside Egypt.
Akhenaten had a dream to reform Egypt. He changed the way they worshiped, the way they lived and even the way they created art. His rule was a time of great change for Egypt, however his ideas and reforms were met with little support or enthusiasm. He used tremendous amounts of Egypt’s recourses and time for all his reforms, he also consumed a lot of his own time on these problems rather than on his pharaonic duties. During the 5th and 6th years of his reign Akhenaten set the boundaries for his new capital, Akhetaten, 350 kilometres north of Thebes. It was to be a city dedicated to Aten and all who worshiped him, however like most of Akhenaten’s reforms once his rule concluded, like so many other of his attempts to change Egypt, this too would be abandoned. Akhenaten led an artistic reform, changing the way that Egyptian artists portrayed the people of Egypt. He moved away from the false grandeur that had always been used and opted for a more stark and realistic approach, possible even an exaggerated ugliness. He himself was depicted as a gaunt, frail and pot-bellied man with a stern and imposing face rather than a strong radiant god king as previous pharaohs had always b...
The unification of Ancient Egypt became the major foundation for which the way Egyptian and African history is taught in this day and time. The combination of the two dynamic kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt played a significant role in shaping Egypt’s impact on the early civilization of mankind. Before the unification can be explored, we must further understand the differences of the two kingdoms. This will allow us to better grasp the concept of how the two advanced kingdoms complemented one another during their unification. The geographical qualities/relationship with the Nile River, trade routes, symbols, and religious beliefs will be fully analyzed in order to compare and contrast the two kingdoms. King Narmer’s (Menes) role in the unification
The Valley of the Kings is a valley in Egypt which was chosen as the burial ground for a great number of pharaohs and nobles of the New Kingdom; the New Kingdom in Egypt spans the time between the 16th century BC and the 11th century BC which includes the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth dynasties of Egypt (Long 2015: 39). In 1979 an organization known as the Theban Mapping Project was organized to strategically catalogue the present and available archaeological record of the Theban Necropolis in the Valley of the Kings. “The TMP’s goal is to establish a historical and contemporary record of all monuments … and to prepare detailed topographical maps, architectural plans and surveys of their history and condition (Weeks 2000:1).” The book
The Mesopotamian geography affected their society because Mesopotamia was located on an open plain without protection from foreign intrusions. Egypt, on the other hand, was centered on the Nile River ad protected by natural boundaries. This allowed Egypt?s kingdom for prosper and last for thousands of years. Mesopotamia was not considered a nation or country, it was considered a region between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers that established a number of highly organized city-states. Since each city-state was independent there was no capital of Mesopotamia.
...re that was most unique to the Early Dynastic period was the oval enclosure with a centralized platform to lend stability to the shrine. Storage were found near the enclosure. The Temple Oval at Khafaje best exemplifies the unique formation of the oval enclosure in the temples. This enclosure had a double perimeter wall present which was highly unusual for enclosures. Another oval temple was found that Tell al Ubaid, which had a rectangular platform in the center. In the front of this platform there were elaborate decorations, which were belived to have fallen from the façade of the temple which had stood on the platform. Besides these oval temples there were also plans of temples with a number of single or double roomed shrines, one noteworthy temple is from Tell Chuera in North Syria. This design plan yields a closer resemblance to the west and megaron buildings.
Together with the surroundings, such as the small pyramids and the temples, they form a complex and symmetrical layout. Their location was also chosen with special consideration to capitalize on the building techniques of the time period. All these considerations have been made. them great wonders of the world. With the Nile River flowing beside them.