Doug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never said that these terms weren't references
> to Libyans. In fact, I am not the source of
> anything you are referring to. What you are
> referring to are the scientists and archaeologists
> who state unequivocally that those three groups of
> Libyans are not all the same and that the
> depictions of such from the old kingdom to Middle
> Kingdom did change.

You know, you should understand that the citations URLs you gave in fact talk about Libyans at certain times: the first speaks about how the Rebu (western mountain peoples of Libya) appear in Dynasty 18 forward, as well as the Meshwesh (same time period), and the second, discusses what tribes of modern Libya may be associated with Strabo's version of the Libyans. But none of your URLs say anything about "...depictions of such (Libyans) from the old kingdom to Middle Kingdom [changed]."

And actually, the Zurdig on Geocities site says exactly the opposite:

"The term "Libyan" is a collective name applied for our convenience to the various inhabitants who resided in North Africa west of the Nile Valley (but not restricted to modern Libya), whose economy seems largely to have been based on nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism (O'Connor 1990:30). The Egyptians of antiquity referred to these peoples and the land that they inhabited by a number of terms, of which the most regularly used in the New Kingdom were Tjemehu, Tjehenu, Meshwesh and Rebu (or Libu), each of whom were characteristically depicted (O'Connor 1990:47-57).

Tjemehu and Tjehenu were very ancient terms that originally referred to the inhabitants of the regions known as Tjemeh and Tjehnu, the former seemingly bordering the Nile Delta whilst the latter extended further southwards (Bates 1914:46-51; Kitchen 1990:16; O'Connor 1990:30; Vandersleyen 1998:1203). Whilst these terms did originally refer to certain specific areas, by the New Kingdom they seem to have become interchangeable and could be used as more generic terms that could be applied to the whole region west of the Delta, as far as Cyrenaica in modern Libya, and its population (O'Connor ibid.).For example, the Merenptah invasion text contains the line, "the land of Tjehnu came…and it consisted of Libu, Seped (a minor Libyan group) and Meshwesh…" (Peden 1994:13)."

You implied the /TmHw/+A1*B1:Z2 + T14 and the /THnw/ + N25 (sandy hill=desert/hill country) determinative + T14 are distinct peoples, one fair and one dark, who changed during the Middle Kingdom. The above, with citations, state quite the opposite.

Further, if you study the representations of Libyans from the Old Kingdom forward, they are presented in the exact same way throughout Egyptian history. Their representations certainly do not change over the millennia, however (fair skin, open robes, feathers in their braided hair, wearing tattoos and penis sheaths - all clothing known to be worn by Libyans since the Old Kingdom).

> One reference for all of this is Oric Bates "The
> Eastern Libyans".

I suspect you'd better not teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, Doug: I am well familiar with Bates' work, and he does not state what you say.

> Of course, there is no reason not to disagree, but
> don't tell me I am incorrect when I am not the one
> who originated these ideas.

But apparently you are the origin that there was a significant change in the Libyans, inwo 2 separate groups, from Old Kingdom to Middle Kingdom, since none of your cited information say what you have said they do. Yet, I think I know where you've gotten this bad information (see below).

>On top of that I
> don't agree with the contention that Tjemehu is a
> general reference to the Land West of Egypt, when
> many, many others say it is a name for a separate
> group of "Libyans". And these same people also
> look at the Meshwesh as being elements of
> Syrio/Palestinian invaders, often referred to as
> the "sea people" who were allied with the original
> Tjehenu in their attempts to conquer Egypt.
> Again, these are not my claims, these are the
> claims of various scholars in the field. So this
> isn't something I went to the lab and cooked up on
> my own.
>
> References provided in both this and other
> threads.

But what I'm telling you is a) your cited URLs in the post to which I responded don't say this, and b) the translation of /THnw/ + N25 (sandy hill=desert/hill country) determinative + T14 specifially refers to the lands west of Egypt, and thus to the Western deserts of Libya (Wb V: 394). That is, the term /THnw/ + N25 is the Egyptian term for the land and all of its nomadic peoples, who were clumped under a single term. The term /THnw/ is a generic term, as the Zurdig website says. I have read both Peden and O'Connor, and they too don't state any change in the Libyans as a group during the Middle Kingdom either (FWIW, their focus is on the later New Kingdom Libyans, though O'Connor, cited below, says even more about the general nature of the Libyans, which doe support my position rather than yours).

O'Connor, for example, stated that Tjemeh and Tjehnu were very general terms for Libyans, with the most that can be said is that the territories of the Meshwesh and Libu lay west of the land of Tjehnu, but only in a narrow sense. Further, there were material culture traits peculiar to all of these Libyan groups, in which the kilt, the phallus sheath, the head feather and certain arms are significant features; in other aspects of Tjemhu material culture, the same traits were seen in all aspects of Meshwesh, Libu and Tjehnu cultural practices (O'Connor 1990).

Source: O'Connor, D. 1990. The Nature of Tjemhu (Libyan) Society in the Later New Kingdom. In A. Leahy, ed., Libya and Egypt, c 1300 - 750 BC: 29-113. London: SOAS.

So, regardless of your position, all I can say is, from my bibliographical review, the authors you think support your contention there were significant changes in the Libyans into two separate groups don't say this at all.

The problem is that YOU are relying upon Herodotus' comments about Libyans being of two different types of people, not any modern scholar cited here.

What you don't seem to realise is that, for the ancient Greeks, "Libya" referred to the majority of Africa. Here's how Wikipedia put it, which is basically a correct assessment of the situation:

"The boundaries of Ancient Libya have yet to be determined.

It was to the west of Ancient Egypt, and it was known as "IMNT" to the Ancient Egyptians. Libya was an unknown territory to the Egyptians: it was the lands of the spirits.

To the Ancient Greeks, Libya was one of the three known continents, besides Asia and Europe. In this sense, Libya was the whole African continent to the west of the Nile Valley. Herodotus distinguished the inhabitants of Libya into two people: The Libyans in North Africa and the Etheopians [sic] in the south. According to Herodotus, Libya begins where the Ancient Egypt ends, and ends in Cape Spartel in the south of Tangier on the Atlantic coast."

So, unless you can cite some modern author who, with verifiable support, and not relying merely Herodotus's term of 'Libya', which is not the same term for "Libya" as the ancient Egyptians understood it, can show two disctinct groups of Libyans - one light and one dark - as you have stated - then I'd say you have no support for your position that there were two separate groups in Libya. The Egyptians certainly didn't believe that, according to their texts and/or representations of the Libyans.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2007 12:29PM by Katherine Griffis-Greenberg.