
The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago - pseudolus
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/sudan-land-kush-meroe-ancient-civilization-overlooked-180975498/
======
arp242
> I first learned of Sudan’s extraordinary pyramids as a boy, in the British
> historian Basil Davidson’s 1984 documentary series “Africa.”

This one seems to be on YouTube:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X75COneJ4w8&list=PL6mz4AK-
lT...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X75COneJ4w8&list=PL6mz4AK-
lTo6KOzj309JKOzssfFArBxiQ)

~~~
djitz
This series is amazing. Thank you for sharing

------
theobeers
I was starting to worry that the author would omit one of the classic factoids
on this topic: that there are more pyramids in what is now Sudan, than there
are in what is now Egypt. And not by a small margin! (This is mentioned,
pretty far into the article.)

~~~
phist_mcgee
And here is a fact to add to your repertoire of non-factoids! Factoid, is in
fact a fact which is not actually true, but has been so often repeated it is
accepted as true! ([https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/factoid](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/factoid))

Unless of course you are referring to the _other_ meaning of factoid, which is
the opposite meaning..

~~~
nl
I think the opposite meaning of factoid (ie: a small, very specific fact) is
actually the more common usage.

I've _never_ heard anyone actually use the original meaning, but frequently
hear the "small fact" usage - except to point out the opposite meaning. (I've
done some work in question answering, and the "small fact" usage is
exclusively the way I've seen it used in that field)

~~~
sellyme
I find that the most common usage is for someone describing what they think is
a small, very specific fact, but is in fact just a repetition of an old wives'
tale with no veracity whatsoever. So maybe the original definition isn't
_intentionally_ used that often, but it does end up being relevant quite a
lot!

------
power
There's a nice webcomic called Drawing History that gives a gentle overview of
many ancient civilisations, including the Kush
[https://m.tapas.io/series/Drawing-
History/info](https://m.tapas.io/series/Drawing-History/info)

------
robk
Meroe is spectacular and virtually no tourists and overall rather safe
compared to the other three quadrants of the country. I can recommend that and
scuba diving in Port Sudan highly.
[https://www.robk.com/2013/08/21/sudan-2012/](https://www.robk.com/2013/08/21/sudan-2012/)

~~~
pueblito
What are the square structures in the back of the 2nd to last photo?

------
leptoniscool
If the area was more prosperous today, it would have hired many historians and
PR to spread its historical significance. Many European cities do this to
increase tourism revenue.

~~~
082349872349872
I'm guessing it had been prosperous while it was in the middle of the trade
route between egypt and punt, and that after some change (broken off trade, or
just rerouted via the red sea to cut out the middle man?) lost that envious
position.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Punt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Punt)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23184621](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23184621)

------
kbenson
> The land south of Egypt, beyond the first cataract of the Nile, was known to
> the ancient world by many names: Ta-Seti, or Land of the Bow, so named
> because the inhabitants were expert archers; Ta-Nehesi, or Land of Copper;

Oh, is that what Ta-Nehesi Coates is named after? I decided to look, and
apparently his name is slightly different, Ta-Nehisi. What's weird just just
how often he's miscredited with the wrong name in articles online, whether
they be blogs or new agencies (those might be alternate spelling tagging) or
book clubs.

As I myself have an uncommon spelling of a fairly common name (with no common
variations), I can only imagine how annoying this must be. It's probably self
propagating at this point, since anyone that searches for it with the wrong
name will find plenty of (wrong) evidence that they guessed right, depending
on where their eyes land on the page.

~~~
legerdemain
Note that Ta-Nehisi Coates insists on the pronunciation "Ta-Nehasi Coates."

~~~
kbenson
Yeah, the first few times I heard him on a podcast, I thought people were
calling him "Tallahassee".

------
Cactus2018
Recommend sources for human culture/civilization history from 10,000 B.C. to
5,000 B.C.?

Most of the top search results and Wikipedia entries tap out on cultures prior
to ~5,000-~3,000 B.C.

Of course there are stand alone pages such as Neolithic_founder_crops
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture)

Chalocolithic Period
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcolithic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcolithic)

~~~
simonsarris
Against the Grain by James Scott.

~~~
simlevesque
Thank you I just ordered it.

------
legerdemain
"Kushi" is still a current slur against black people in Israel and other
Hebrew-speaking areas.[1] It's a bit like calling someone a "chinaman." Also,
some people point out the sound similarity of קוֹף (monkey) and כושי
(Kushite).

[1] [https://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbi-compares-
african-a...](https://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbi-compares-african-
americans-to-monkeys/)

~~~
drorco
I wouldn't say this is accurate. Well, some might use it that way, but as a
kid this is the word we were taught for black folk with no harm intended, it's
also the name used in the bible--I believe it's originally from the bible.

~~~
legerdemain
The Troubling Resurgence of Racial Slurs Like ‘Shvartze’ and ‘Kushi’[1]

Hasidic singer slurs Obama at Jerusalem concert[2]

Terra incognita: Israel’s k-word: Can Holon teach us a lesson in racism?[3]

[https://forward.com/opinion/361625/michael-twitty-black-
jewi...](https://forward.com/opinion/361625/michael-twitty-black-jewish-
relations/)

[https://www.timesofisrael.com/hasidic-singer-slurs-obama-
at-...](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hasidic-singer-slurs-obama-at-jerusalem-
concert/)

[https://www.jpost.com/opinion/columnists/terra-incognita-
isr...](https://www.jpost.com/opinion/columnists/terra-incognita-israels-k-
word-can-holon-teach-us-a-lesson-in-racism-344425)

~~~
jazzyjackson
drorco didn't say no one uses it as a slur, they were relaying their
experience having been taught the word means no ill will. I don't really see a
reason to try to prove his experience wrong.

~~~
legerdemain
They claimed that describing this word as a slur is inaccurate. This word is
commonly used and described as a slur.

~~~
drorco
I think what happens is that overtime certain groups have taken "ownership"
over the word by using it as a racial slur but originally it just means
"someone from Kush". In Hebrew if you take a location and add "I" as a suffix
it means someone originating from that place, e.g: "Americai"-> someone from
America, "Kushi"-> someone from Kush which is a country occasionally used in
the bible to refer to Africa.

I guess in English there are also such words that originally had no use as a
slur but later "denominated" to racial slurs.

The reference to Kushi->Kof (monkey) is totally off. Doesn't sound similar at
all for my native Hebrew ears.

~~~
legerdemain
Look, this is just childish equivocation. A lot of words that are considered
offensive also have (or used to have) other, innocuous meanings. What you're
doing is like a child saying "Nah-uh, this word just means _happy_!"

A word is offensive in polite society because a population of people finds it
hurtful, or because another population of people uses it in an intentionally
hurtful way. Usually it's both. Innocent words can become slurs, and other
slurs, over time, can become obscure and lose their power.

For example, the "n-word" in English obviously comes from the Spanish or
Portuguese for the color black. Despite that, it's an offensive slur.

The older colloquial term in the English language for Romani people apparently
comes from the word "Egyptian." There is no problem with being Egyptian. But
many people find this particular word hurtful, and polite society is actively
trying to retire it.

Maybe you have personal ideas about what "should" or "shouldn't" be hurtful,
but I'm surprised that we don't seem to agree on how people actually use these
words in reality. "Kushi" can be a slur even if your grandma's pet name for
you was "my little Kushi" and you love that word to death.

~~~
Natsu
This is just the euphamism treadmill in action. The name for an outgroup
becomes a slur over time because it refers to an outgroup.

~~~
earthboundkid
The treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes. African
American/Black have been the main terms in American language for 50 years now,
with some back and forth between the two, but no further replacement.

~~~
michannne
What makes you think that won't change? As a Jamaican American, I look forward
to the day when people stop referring to me as "black"

~~~
earthboundkid
Because you prefer “Jamaican”? Or “African American”? Or nothing? I can’t tell
what you mean from context.

I don’t think “black” “white” and “brown” can go away as descriptors like
“blond” and “redhead”, but maybe someday they will stop being identity
categories. America already has large non-native black populations in certain
areas (West Africans, Somalis, West Indies, etc.), but I think the country
still thinks of Black = African American = descendent of U.S. slaves for now,
because the non-native blacks are still mostly focused regionally, like
Somalis in Minnesota.

I guess this is another reason for the treadmill: distinctions that were
implicit before maybe need to be made explicit as different things become
salient.

~~~
michannne
You said the treadmill stops when you change public attitude, and you imply
the terms Black and African American used to refer to black people are
acceptable designations for groups of people as of now. I'm making the point
that that is completely subjective, as in my case I don't like being referred
to as an African American, because I'm not, and black is basically a synonym
for "Not african american", yet these are the default terms and you say that
there is "no further replacement". My point is that words change meaning all
the time, we are not heading into some inevitable singularity where all of
these words over here are objectively good in all situations and all of those
words are objectively bad in all situations and this will remain so for
eternity - language is not that stagnant nor black and white, and for me that
is a good thing. It is 100% your personal opinion that you find the terms
Black and African American acceptable designations for groups for the
foreseeable future, but don't project your personal opinion onto others - I
personally look forward to the day where people refer to me as Jamaican and
not just "black" or mistakenly, African American, and in the same way there
are those who hold the opposite opinion and those who don't want to be
generalized at all. That you personally like or dont like a particular label
has no bearing on whether or not everyone else agrees with your opinion.

Tl;dr your statement "The [euphemism] treadmill stops when you actually change
public attitudes" actually means "The euphemism treadmill stops when you
actually change public attitudes in such a way that I am personally
comfortable with it's final state", because in reality the treadmill will
never stop, someone will always push to keep it going, it's the reason why
language shifts and changes over time.

------
fortran77
According to the Hebrew Bible, a wife of Moses was from Sudan. And there are
many references to a "Kingdom of Kush" which is taken to be where modern-day
Sudan is. So at least 3500 years ago, we have some evidence of a thriving
civilization there.

~~~
casefields
She even sells cosmetics today!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephora)

------
jessaustin
If our cultural memory of much more recent events indicates anything, I reckon
we've "forgotten" quite a few things that went on 5k ya.

------
the_af
> _“It’s like opening a fairytale book”_

Breathtaking photos and awesome article! I knew nothing about the Kush before
reading this.

------
stakkur
I think it's fair to say that Kush has never been 'forgotten'\--in fact, it's
been heavily researched, documented, debated. This article title is a bit
clickbait-y, and hinges on the current fad of 'Europeans are all racists and
didn't acknowledge/appreciate a Black civilization', which is of course wrong.

~~~
AlotOfReading
Yes, Sudan hasn't been totally ignored, but the 3 classical areas of Rome,
Greece, and Egypt have gotten a very disproportionate share of work, with
France and the Levant/near east as second fiddles. On that scale, I think it's
fair to describe Sudan and other outlying areas (like the Caucasus) as
effectively ignored.

The article also isn't talking about "Europeans are racist and didn't
appreciate black people". It's referencing about how Sudanese archaeology has
been plagued by Diffusionism, a formerly dominant school of thought that's
come under heavy criticism in the past 40ish years. Some people, myself
included, will argue that diffusionism is a product of prejudiced ideologies
and worldviews, but that's at least one step removed from what you're
suggesting.

~~~
hogFeast
The work is in proportion to the amount of documents that are retained today.
The reason why Rome and Greece are "popular" is they determined intellectual
thought from the fall of the Western Rome until, probably, humanism (some one
millennia later) so much of what they wrote down has been retained (or, more
accurately, wasn't destroyed).

As an example: we know Carthage was a huge civilisation...until Rome razed it
so we have no real idea today what ancient Carthage actually was like apart
from that it was significant enough for Rome to burn to the ground.

Also, talking about "Europeans" is indicative of a total misconception of
history in the period. Rome was a Mediterranean as much as a European one
(north of Rome wasn't Europe as today, it was just a bunch of tribes). Many
important figures that, ironically, people today say are examples of an over-
emphasis on "Europeans" were Africans. Augustine being the best example,
basically founded the theology of the early Church, he was a Roman but he was
(in today's terms) also African. In short, trying to read the present back
into the future is not smart.

~~~
AlotOfReading
The work of archaeologists is absolutely not in proportion to the amount of
surviving documents. Most of my digs have been in places and periods with few
to no written records, for example.

As for the comment about Europeans, I was talking about modern academics
(particularly of the early through late 20th century). The leading
archaeologists of that period primarily came from European and American
traditions. I have no idea what Augustine has to do with 20th century
academia. Please feel free to enlighten me if there's a connection though.

~~~
hogFeast
That wasn't the claim. You should read the reply chain but the point isn't
about archaeology but our interpretation of civilization outside Rome and
Greece. You wanted to know why these civilizations get that share of
work...the reason why is that their thought was more relevant to us (again,
most Europeans believed in Aristotelian science until humanism). And, again,
these civilizations were more African than European...it is nothing to do with
racism (which was the implication).

That wasn't the claim. I will explain, although you would do just as well to
go back and read what I said more closely...again. The point is: many people
who are perceived to be part of the European tradition (i.e. Rome/Greece) are
not Europeans. So when someone says: Europe has got a disproportionate share
of work, these regions are ignored, their civilizations are ignored...this is
wrong. Most of these civilizations were mutli-culutural/multi-national, and
included Africa (the other big contributor would be the Middle East). Again,
attempting to read the current political view onto the past. And the point
about Augustine is that he was African, the point about academics who say
things like: we are too Euro-centric is that they define Europe in a way that
makes no historical sense (unsurprisingly, as they are usually arguing about
things in the present, not anything related to history...the concept of Europe
itself is not something with a clear historical meaning).

~~~
AlotOfReading
It seems like there might be a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Quoting
myself:

> ..the 3 classical areas of Rome, Greece, and Egypt have gotten a very
> disproportionate share of work...

Greece and Rome (in the sense of the empire) are literally the "classic" in
so-called classical archaeology [1]. Egypt is included because it's comparable
for this particular case and there's a pretty substantial overlap with "core"
classical archaeology.

Again, I've written nothing about whether these areas encompass parts of
Africa nor whether they were wholly European. I also haven't implicated racism
as the reason for that disproportionate amount of study. The things you're
criticizing aren't my views and trying to put words into my mouth isn't
appreciated.

[1] [https://lsa.umich.edu/classics/undergraduate-
students/majors...](https://lsa.umich.edu/classics/undergraduate-
students/majors-and-minors/classical-archaeology.html)

------
CrackpotGonzo
"Be, be-fore we came to this country

We were kings and queens, never porch monkeys

There was empires in Africa called Kush

Timbuktu, where every race came to get books

To learn from black teachers who taught Greeks and Romans

Asian Arabs and gave them gold, when

Gold was converted to money it all changed

Money then became empowerment for Europeans

The Persian military invaded

They heard about the gold, the teachings, and everything sacred

Africa was almost robbed naked

Slavery was money, so they began making slave ships

Egypt was the place that Alexander the Great went

He was so shocked at the mountains with black faces

Shot up they nose to impose what basically

Still goes on today, you see?"

\- From I Can by Nas [https://genius.com/Nas-i-can-
lyrics](https://genius.com/Nas-i-can-lyrics)

~~~
karlp
It sounds really deep, but there doesn't seem to be any truth to it? Wikipedia
mentions internal problems and conquest by a neighboring kingdom:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush)

I don't understand why make up stories when there are more than enough
material with the colonial history.

~~~
elefanten
One of the most frustrating aspects of these liberationist counter-narratives
is the pretense that whoever conquered or succeeded certain
civilizations/cultures, did so by a unique application of force.

Roughly: 'our people were good and peaceful until evil warlike invaders with
wholly-different human motivations wiped us out.'

We should aim to fix injustices in the world. But building false narratives of
differential demonization will only recreate problems in the long run.

~~~
haltingproblem
How does an invasionary force conquer a foreign land where they are
outnumbered other than by being warlike?

Lets define warlike as those who have achieved a high degree of skill at
warfare.

The Mongols who conquered cities and states were famously warlike. So were the
Macedonians/Greeks under Alexander.

------
jandrese
It's pretty common for archeology to be scanty when a civilization doesn't
leave behind any writings to study. If you want to be remembered you gotta
write stuff down, and do so in a way that survives the ages.

It also helps to be closer to the modern era. Complaints that the Greek and
Roman empires are better known seem a bit silly when you consider that they
were in their peak closer to the present day than they were to Kush.

~~~
marc_abonce
Kushites did have writing though:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meroitic_script](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meroitic_script).

~~~
wl
It's not writing that's well understood. There's no parallel texts like the
Rosetta Stone. Also, Meroitic isn't closely related to any other language we
have knowledge of. As a result, we can read a few names and little else.

~~~
bsanr
I think that wraps around to the issue one of the other comments raised, which
is the contention that less effort has been put into this area compared to,
say, the civilizations whose languages are represented on the Rosetta Stone.
Who's to say that there isn't one for Kush, buried in some undiscovered site?
Or, what about using ML to investigate similarities in construction and form
between the languages conveyed in Meroitic and other languages?

------
ncal
There's a Kush civilization flourishing in my closet today.

------
stevefan1999
I guess the people there blazed it and lit up too much? /s

