A scholar of two worlds looks at the marchland between Egypt and Kush.
As scholars, especially Laszlo Torok, in the last half century have developed an appreciation of Nubia's self-awareness and cultural integrity, the region between the great centers of Egypt and Sudan has become something of a problem. Approaches to northern (Lower) Nubia have ranged from using it to stand for Africa in Egyptology generally, to seeing it as an aberration within Nubia and almost irrelevant. Torok is not necessarily working to strike a balance, but to give fuller consideration to a wider range of sources in appraising the role of this region. Some relatively recent developments encourage this effort, since the archaeology of Sudan is now much better known than it was a generation or so ago, important phases of Lower Nubian culture are illuminated more brightly, and especially because the major written documents have now been assembled into a compact library of source materials, in large part by the author. (1) He considers the problem in some broad phases, Neolithic, with A-Group and the emerging Egyptian State, the phases after A-Group but before the Egyptian New Kingdom, Egyptian control during the New Kingdom, and the Kushite Empire of Napata and Meroe and its aftermath.
Torok summarizes a large and growing body of literature dealing with the rise of the Neolithic through the A-Group, covering the substantive discoveries in much of the area and most of the current discussions. A rather fluctuating picture of climate and the establishment of cultures in the desert and the vicinity of the Nile (pp. 26-27) would have been enhanced by considering the more recent large-scale research program of the Acacia project in the Western Desert, which has confirmed a long northward extension of human activity during the Holocene, its contraction toward the Nile (and oases) after 5000 B.c., and an early use of cattle. (2)
Once permanent settlement became the norm along the Nile itself, strongly differentiated cultural groups appeared that raised the possibility of a marchland between them, a frontera of mixing, ambiguity, and conflict. The two main actors were the emerging Egyptian culture of the Naqada Period from Hierakonpolis northward and the Sudanese Late Neolithic, essentially from the Third Cataract southward. After 4000 B.C., the A-Group emerged in the area between them, lasting to the early First Dynasty. (3) Impressively rich from the first, Egyptian objects in a Nubian setting indicate that wealth was available on a scale equal to any in Egypt or Sudan, and the mix already foreshadows A-Group's career. Although probably supported by an African mixed domestic economy, trade apparently drove a cultural elaboration that culminated in an Egyptian-styled dynasty at Qustul. This was not a matter of long-distance contact, but a continuous and intensive relationship witnessed by rock art. (4) The picture is not so simple, however, for A-Group culture, influence, and contact spread far into what is now desert and as far north as Hierakonpolis, as Torok recounts (p. 40).
As the first Nubian culture to acquire complex pharaonic religious culture and express it unequivocally in art, A-Group has caused considerable difficulty for Egyptologists and Nubiologists alike. Torok (pp. 41-42) takes note of various positions without subjecting them to detailed examination, although he accepts the assumption that the Qustul Dynasty was presented as originating everything pharaonic and not as a participant (p. 43). He also gives the cemetery at Qustul a late date, clustering it as a unit (p. 43) rather than treating each tomb as a separate event, each with its own specific correlations, as he does later for el-Kurru (pp. 298-304). Points that might change the course of the discussion and alter the conclusions are the facts that A-Group symbolic art developed a distinct style (5) and that the Qustul tombs had no peers in Nubia despite the impressive, but accidentally preserved, wealth in a tomb at Sayala. (6)
The sparseness of archaeological findings in Lower Nubia after A-Group, from the early First to the late Fifth Dynasty, could hardly be coincidental. (7) Between a post at Buhen that could best be called a factory (pp. 53-58) (8) and the heavily fortified town of Elephantine there were only scattered burials, and possibly some pottery near Kuban. Thus, the still rather shadowy Pre-Kerma culture must have been at once the object of the campaigns of Khasekhemwy and Sneferu and the source of anxiety that led to the maintenance of a great fortress at Elephantine. That Old Kingdom Egypt got what it wanted from Nubia without a strong, permanent presence is instructive.
Around the time of the end of the Fifth Dynasty a large-scale resettlement took place. In Lower Nubia this is known as C-Group, and upstream, especially above the Third Cataract as far as the Fourth Cataract, it is referred to as Early Kerma (Kerma ancien or KA) or Old Kush I. The new settlement differed socially from earlier cultures. Torok notes the dessication of the eastern Sahara and the Wadi Howar as likely driving factors in this resettlement, but the change was swift and dramatic and the resulting population of Nubians was also swiftly recruited by the Egyptians--not just for labor, but also for large-scale military operations in southwestern Asia. Given Old Kingdom Egypt's now-known outreach into the Libyan Desert, (9) and the fact that it could have prevented this resettlement, I would also infer that the Egyptian government at least encouraged this change in a reversal of its earlier anti-settlement policy. This cattle-loving warrior society was, as Torok notes, one of limited inequality, but it had more substantial settlements than he admits (p. 66), (10) and relations, later managed by the governors of Elephantine, came to be somewhat turbulent as the Sixth Dynasty wore down. The governors had to use force from time to time, and parts of Lower Nubia may have been "no go" territory, at least temporarily (p. 70). A large number of Nubians were also cursed in execration formulae deposited at the capital. (11) These have yet to be integrated into an analysis of the period, although they show the depth to which Nubians had penetrated Egypt. If we come to understand them better, they will give a small voice to C-Group.
Despite triumphalist Egyptian declarations, Nubians, including Medjay, continued to be active in the Egyptian military in all struggles and on all sides; their rewards included gold. (12) This continuing relationship is significant for our understanding of the relationship between Nubians and Egypt generally. Each was familiar with the other at all times, and often with great intimacy. Despite this closeness, the Nubian cultures remained distant from Egypt and each other. This self-distancing was expressed in all aspects of material culture and must have been deliberate, even in the mixing of Nubian and Egyptian dress and ornament.
About the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt began its first attempt at expanding in Nubia permanently beyond a frontier. Torok carefully recounts all of the usually cited motives for this change (pp. 79-92), to which we can add another that may have been the most important. The fortresses that were the physical expression of this expansion were actually only part of a complex security system used to control the region. (13) In an era of self-aware insecurity, this system prevented the sort of unauthorized immigration or emigration that had played such a disruptive role during the First Intermediate Period. The Egyptian state could not clear Lower Nubia and dispense with the Nubians altogether, since they were an important part of its military. However, it also could not allow these formidable assets to be freely available to potentially dangerous elements inside Egypt. In the reign of Sesostris III the security apparatus was enhanced and hardened to face the rising power of Kush, which nevertheless ultimately expanded to Syene and at least campaigned in Egypt.
Torok closes this part of the book with a careful and enlightening discussion of Nubia before the New Kingdom, but he has some trouble discerning motives driving the phenomena he notes and details. In this we may recognize that Torok has drawn thoroughly on sources for Egypt and Nubia and sometimes adduces comparisons from as far away as South America, but that for Nubia, which lacks written records, we may require some reference to related phenomena in more recent Sudan in order to seek insight into underlying structures of belief.
For New Kingdom times Torok quotes the work of other scholars somewhat less frequently, and this increasing independence is reflected in some of the more detailed presentations, especially his analysis of temples and religious culture. Despite Torok's view (p. 184), the Egyptianization of land settlement began soon after the reconquest in Lower Nubia and was deeply established by the time of Thutmose III, 14 as shown by cemeteries near the fortresses, such as at Mirgissa, and those away from the forts, such as at Adindan and Qustul. Egyptianization was accompanied and enhanced by the deliberate establishment of Egyptian temples and towns in Nubia as far south as Kawa in the Dongola reach and in the area of Gebel Barkal.
Under this new policy Nubia was incorporated into Egypt's religious-cultural realm, not merely occupied, and the rival power of Kush became an Egyptian province in culture as well as government. In turn, the new towns and temples would play a deeper role in the life of Egypt and its economy. Previously, the pharaoh had acted for the gods, but now the gods took on a direct role in the world through their aggrandized temples, reflecting a policy in force in Egypt as well as in Nubia. Since it is now clear that the Nubian population was not replaced, this means that a large-scale cultural assimilation took place south of the First Cataract, one that included a dramatic increase in available Egyptian-type wealth in material culture, even as Nubians showed themselves as Egyptians within Nubia, but as Nubians in Egypt. (15)
Despite the scenes of tribute and the language of violence and exploitation, the Egyptianized areas of Nubia were co-opted rather than crushed, and they became part of a "sacred landscape" that included both countries and incorporated deities of all localities. (16) There were cultural transitions (l7) and continuities, (18) but the change was overwhelming. Yet Nubian culture, manifestly related to that of Kerma, revived again and the locations where it survived have been a matter of some conjecture. Morkot, for example, posits its continuation between Kawa and Barkal in the Dongola reach, an opinion not yet supported by discoveries on the ground. On the other hand, New Kingdom cemeteries of Nubian type have recently been found at the Fourth Cataract, which provides at least one verified reservoir of continuity. (19)
At the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, when Viceroy Panehsy retreated to Nubia from Thebes (pp. 204-7), (20) all of Nubia was separated from Egypt to a greater (Dongola Reach) or lesser (Lower Nubia) degree. Although titles from the old empire persisted, along with hints at campaigning, no body of direct inscriptional or archaeological evidence in Nubia supports continued Egyptian control there. (21) Trade goods continued to flow to some extent, and Nubian or Kushite troops are mentioned in Near Eastern sources, but there is no sign of an occupation or a government. It appears (my observation) as though Lower Nubia reverted to the anti-settlement condition of the Old Kingdom, with neither Egyptians nor Nubians in residence. In such circumstances the concept of Egyptian "control" (pp. 207, 289-90) is rather an overstatement. Upper Nubia, down to the early Napatan Period, remains something of a blank, and the archaeological materials (pp. 287-88) and documents (pp. 292-93) cited do not fill it in historically, as Torok notes. The one shining example of such a relevant document is that of Queen Kadimalo (pp. 294-98).
In regard to Upper Nubia, Torok re-states arguments previously made (pp. 298-309) that the el-Kurru sequence of royal tombs could (or did) actually span the entire dark age. To support this longer chronology, he interprets some of the less discrete archaeological contexts of comparanda as indicating a wider "chronological spectrum" that better contexts show had briefer careers, confined to the period of the shorter chronology. (22) The difference between Torok's chronology and the shorter one of a century and a half to two centuries cannot obscure the fact that the early tombs are entirely Nubian in character, representing thereby not a cultural succession from Egyptianized New Kingdom Nubia, but a reversal.
As the el-Kurru tumuli lead into the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, Torok traces the incorporation of Egyptian images and norms in Kush to construct a formal culture and state apparatus along somewhat "Nubianized" Egyptian lines. As in Egypt, this centered on temple complexes--both revivals of New Kingdom towns and new foundations--primarily concentrated on Amun, dually shown as a local form and as Amun of Thebes (pp. 339-43). As in Egypt, this was not just an exercise in monumental cult, but a mode of organizing society. (23)
Despite Psammetichos II's great campaign against Napata, the picture of Kush after the fall of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty is one of consistency and continuity, if not totally unthreat-ened stability. The frontier region appears to have been a marchland, with frontier posts at Elephantine and Dorginarti and occasional campaigns in between (pp. 364-80). There is no unequivocal evidence of settled life, a condition that continued in the area south of the Dodekaschoinos until well into Ptolemaic times. When Ptolemy II campaigned in Lower Nubia, he claimed to control far more territory, the Triakontaschoinos as he named it, but he actually began a consolidation only in the Dodekaschoinos, where all incomes were assigned to Isis of Philae, and temples, some to local deities, were built (Torok [pp. 384-90] does not clearly make the geographic distinction). About that time, and possibly due in part to Ptolemy's venture, momentous changes took place in Kush.
The rulers moved their burial place to Meroe, which became the metropolis of the now Meroitic Empire, greatly strengthened the role of Nubian deities in religious and official life, and established Nubian Meroitic as the primary official written language. They did this against the background of the Hellenistic world, and particularly Ptolemaic Egypt, whose history became intertwined with that of Kush in Upper Egyptian revolts. Torok treats all Lower Nubia as a Ptolemaic possession through the second century B.C., although the references cited (especially p. 408) do not clearly indicate this and he does discuss its conjectural nature (p. 411). It is significant that Meroe clearly took over all of northern Nubia for a time in the early second century, as attested by additions to the temples of the Dodekaschoinos. These same temples were subsequently modified by later Ptolemaic rulers, and the burial archaeology confirms that it was a Ptolemaic cultural possession.
On the other hand, the work of the Ptolemies and later Romans is not in evidence to the south, except briefly at Ibrim, and the burial archaeology is Meroitic. However, records of the formal structure of the Meroitic province of Akin do not appear before the first century. This is an historical conundrum of moderate significance: who owned the Triakontaschoinos anyway? Ultimately, the Triakontaschoinos became a Meroitic province and the Dodekaschoinos was strongly influenced from the south. This happened decisively only when Augustus realized that expansion in this area was futile (p. 443), after some complex and somewhat conjectural vicissitudes.
With the construction of the Meroitic administration, Torok enters into a detailed analysis of family histories that demonstrate careers in both Akin and the Dodekaschoinos, illustrating a kind of shared world between the two regions. (24) That they nevertheless remained distinct despite mutual influence and some syncretism, both in administration and culture, is something that Torok does not emphasize.
This difference continued even after 300 a.d. While Torok sees a continuation of Meroitic power, expressed through federates (p. 523), there is no real evidence for it after this time, and the distinctive archaeological phenomena of Meroitic Lower Nubia vanished rapidly. This does not mean that the area was emptied, but that the organized and formalized expression of culture we see in such situations as burials and small objects ceased, for a time, to be chronologically distinctive. By the middle of the century, we witness a dramatically different culture in the Dodekaschoinos, hardly anything but the Blemmyes, whose pottery and stone tumuli have important relations with the Eastern Desert (pp. 522-23). Shortly thereafter, the rise of the Noubades appears in the large and rich mound-tumuli at Qustul, a type of monument also found all over the old empire. Because of the strong Meroitic influence in the art and rare inscriptions, the period has widely been named Post-Meroitic, Late Meroitic, or still more strongly, Post-pyramidal Meroitic. These designations obscure the fact that the changes are greater by far than those that marked the Napatan/Meroitic boundary. They represent a great cultural reaction (p. 522: "cannot be regarded as a continuation of Meroe"). The gods remained, but the superstructure of the Meroitic state was rejected, and with some violence, as the text of Ezana attests. (25)
In Between Two Worlds, Laszlo Torok has given us a deeply researched, thoughtful, and thought-provoking study that will trigger the writing of many essays. It is a book that easily bears re-reading, for he tries to give fair weight to archaeology, art, and architecture, as well as formal and informal documentation of all kinds, including prosopography. In addition to giving us an epic narrative, he has raised many points that will be discussed and debated, in particular those that concern the empty, ambiguous, or transitional phases. In the later periods, the focus of Torok's greatest research activity, these are the early first millennium B.C.--including Egypt's role in Nubia, the early Meroitic Period, the rise of Akin, and the fourth century. It is no coincidence that the first and last of these periods were ages when a deeply Egyptian-influenced civilization was replaced by something strongly Nubian, and the middle one witnessed Nubian features enhanced or embedded more deeply into an Egyptian-influenced formal culture.
The field of Nubian studies has yet to deal with the first and last phases as anything more than eras of cultural amnesia. The middle period should rather serve as the interpretive guide. These were actually times of reversal, when aspects--particularly religious-political symbols--of the old Egyptian-influenced formal culture were rejected in favor of Nubian renewal. It may be submitted that this happened in cases when the prior institutional complex failed in its most important duties, especially that of defending the "ordered world" through the triumphant domination of foreign enemies.
Sometimes we almost forget this is an essay on the physical frontier, since it seems to deal more with a mental frontier. From a high level we can understand the situation on the boundary as a long series of transformations. From the northern point of view, it involved transformations of religion and policy on the initiative of Egypt or Egypt's rulers. In Nubia's view, these were developments in her understanding of her own agency and of Egypt's claim to represent and defend right action in the universe.
Review article of Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC-AD 500. By LAszuo TOROK. Probleme der Agyptologie, vol. 29. Leiden: BRILL, 2009. Pp. xxii + 606, 53 pls. $281.
(1.) Tormond Eide, Tomas Hagg, Richard Pierce, and Laszlo Torok, Fontes Historiae Nubiorum, vols. I-IV. Bergen: University of Bergen Press, 1994-2000.
(2.) See, for example, Rudolf Kuper, "Roots and Routes in Egypt's Western Desert: The Early Holocene Resettlement of the Eastern Sahara," in Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the Desert, ed. Renee Friedman (London: British Museum Press, 2002), 1-12.
(3.) Pace Torek (p. 34 n. 61), who dates the end to the Second Dynasty. Nordstrom, whom he cites in this connection, explicitly ties it to the beginning of the First Dynasty; see Hans-Ake Nordstrom, "The Nubian A-Group: Perceiving a Social Landscape," in Nubian Studies 1998: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for Nubian Studies August 21-26 1998, Boston, Massachusetts, ed. Timothy Kendall (Boston: Department of African-American Studies, Northeastern University, 2004), 142. The confusion is probably due to the use of numerical year dates rather than archaeological correlation.
(4.) Bruce Williams, "A-Group Society in the Context of Northeastern Africa," in Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa in Memory of Lech Krzyzaniak, ed. Karla Kroeper, Marek Chlodnicki, and Michal Kobusiewicz (Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum, 2006), 186-87.
(5.) Apparently related to rock art; see Bruce Williams, Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier, Keith C. Seele, Director, pt. I: The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition, vol. III (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1986), fig. 58. This art was variable, and Torok shows the cruder examples (pl. 15).
(6.) H. S. Smith, "The Princes of Seyala in Lower Nubia in the Predynastic and Protodynastic Periods," in Hommages a Jean Leclant, ed. Catherine Berger, G. Clerc, and N. C. Grimal (Cairo: IFAO, 1994), vol. 2, 361-76. For a comparison of the tomb structures with those at Qustul, see Williams, OINE III (above, n. 5), 14.
(7.) H. S. Smith referred to an anti-settlement policy of the Egyptians in "The Development of the A-Group Culture in Northern Lower Nubia," in Egypt and Nubia: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, ed. W. V. Davies (London: British Museum Press, 1991), 108.
(8.) Karola Zibellius-Chen, Die agyptische Expansion nach Nubien (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1988), 71-72, 74 n. 28.
(9.) Rudolf Kuper, "By Donkey Train to Kufra?--How Mr. Meri Went West," Antiquity 75 (2001): 801-2. See now Joseph Clayton, Aloisia de Trafford. and Mark Bonda, "A Hieroglyphic Inscription Found at Jebel Uwejnut Mentioning Yam and Tekhebet," Sahara 19 (2008): 129-34. Yam must have been far to the southwest and Hankhuf would have gone as far as Darfur.
(10.) The houses had stone foundations and the settlement at Aniba was in four strata. See Georg Steindorff, Aniba (Gluckstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1935), vol. 1, 202-19.
(11.) Juergen Osing, "Achtungstexte aus dem Alten Reich (I1)," MDAIK 32 (1976): 160-64.
(12) Bruce Williams, Excavations at Serra East, George R Hughes and James E. Knudstad, Directors, pts. 1-59: A-Group, C-Group, Pan-Grave, New Kingdom, and X-Group Remains from Cemeteries A-G and Rock Shelters, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition, vol. X (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1993), 51 and n. 70 (gold ring beads). Most tombs were robbed, primarily for valuables, a condition that should not obscure the importance of gold and electrum objects as awards.
(13.) Josef Wegner, "Regional Control in Middle Kingdom Lower Nubia: The Function and History of the Site of Areika," JARCE 32 (1995): 127-60, and Bruce Williams, "Security Conditions and Methods in the Middle Kingdom," paper submitted to the conference "Walls of the Ruler," Swansea 2006 (in press).
(14.) Note the summary chronology of pottery at Qustul and Adindan in Bruce Williams, Excavations Between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier, Keith C. Seele, Director, pt. 6: New Kingdom Remains from Cemeteries R, V, 5, and W at Qustul and Cemetery K at Adindan, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition, vol. VI (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1992), 15-21.
(15.) On pages 271 -72 the author reviews the oft-used example of Heqanefer. This is hardly paradoxical, because with or without Egyptian culture and deities, Nubia was considered geographically foreign, and places there are indicated as such in place lists.
(16.) Torok includes here a detailed analysis of the program of representations in major temples. Throughout, he emphasizes the role of legitimation. While election scenes or creation scenes (as in Luxor) certainly create myths of legitimacy, one has to question the universality of the concept in this context. The Egyptian temple was more than an engine of propaganda, and there were many places within it where narratives of any kind would be useless practically, since they were visible to no one. Rather, the role of religious objects, especially temples, in creating and maintaining an actuality deserves some emphasis.
(17.) Serra East Cemetery A included both tumuli and pyramids of New Kingdom date; see Williams, OINE X (above, n. 12), 160-93.
(18.) Stuart T. Smith, "Death at Tumbos: Pyramids, Iron, and the Rise of the Napatan Dynasty," Sudan & Nubia 11 (2007): 6-7 pl. 6. New Kingdom Nubian pottery occurred both at Tumbos and in dumps at Sesebi (personal observation). For a circular Nubian temple structure in the New Kingdom, see Charles Gonnet, "La ville de Pokki Gel apres les derniers chantiers archeologiques," Genava 55 (2007): 187-92.
(19.) For a Late Kerma cemetery with mid-Eighteenth-Dynasty pottery, see Geoff Emberling and Bruce Williams, "Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition Field Operations, 2008," Oriental Institute News and Notes (Spring 2008): 18 and fig. 10. Derek Welsby has reported to me a piece of identical pottery from Kerma Cemetery 4-L-100 (letter of Sept. 25, 2008). See also Derek Welsby, "Survey in the Vicinity of ed-Doma (AKSE), 2004-2005," Sudan & Nubia 10 (2007): 3.
(20.) Here I add two items of bibliography, which argue for two Nubian campaigns by Piankh: A. Thijs, "Piankh's Second Nubian Campaign," GM 165 (1998): 99-103, and "Please Tell Amun to Bring Me Back from Yar: Dhut-mose's Visits to Nubia," GM 177 (2000): 63-70.
(21.) Karola Zibelius-Chen, "Uberlegung zur agyptischen Nubienpolitik in der dritten Zwischenzeit," SAK 16 (1989): esp. 334-44. She considers Lower Nubia to have been "in agyptischen Besitz," at a reduced level.
(22.) For example, Lisa Heidorn, "Historical Implications of the Pottery from the Earliest Tombs at El-Kurru," JARCE 31 (1994): fig. 1-i, j, which Torok assigns to the Twentieth through Twenty-Sixth Dynasties. For the much more clearly defined contexts at Elephantine, David Aston indicates a narrower band of time: Elephantine XIX: Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1999). He assigns the comparable types as follows: for Heidorn fig. 1-I: 1454 from context 18888a over BC3 (Libyan, late), 1592, 1595, 1619 (not marl, mid-eighth to seventh centuries); fig. 1-j: 1689, 1865 (rim profiles only, but this is a distinctive type, Marl A4 variant 2, same date).
(23.) The dimension is somewhat limited. For trade, see now Irena Vincentelli, "Some Clay Sealings from Sanam Abu Dom," in Melanges offerts a Francis Geus, ed. Brigitte Gratien, CRIPEL 26 (2007): 371-78, and "Sanam Abu Dom, an Administrative and Trading District in the Napata Region," abstract of a paper given at the Eleventh International Congress of Nubian Studies, Vienna 2008.
(24.) For more details, see Torok, "Kinship and Decorum: (Re-) constructing the Meroitic Elite," Der Antike Sudan, MittSAG 13 (2002): 60-84.
(25.) For example, Lawrence Kirwan, Studies on the History of Late Antique and Christian Nubia, ed. T. Hagg, L. Torok, and D. A. Welsby (Bury St. Edmunds: Ashgate, 2002), chap. VI, 164-73 (pagination not sequential).
Bruce Williams University of Chicago
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Journal of the American Oriental Society|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2010|
|Previous Article:||The Buddhist re-interpretation of the legends surrounding King Mu of Zhou.|
|Next Article:||Medieval Arabic Historiography: Authors as Actors.|