DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.57272#0273
NACHTRAGE
Aniba I 5f. — Über die Rassengehörigkeit der Leute der C-Gruppe vertritt Oric Bates (The
Eastern Libyans, an Essay (London 1914), Appendix I, On the “C-Group” — People of Nubia S. 245-252)
auf Grund von anthropologischen und archäologischen Beweisen die Hypothese, daß dieses Volk libyscher
Abkunft und mit den Söldnern der ägyptischen “pan-graves” verwandt sei. “I incline to believe that
the ‘Midde Nubians’ were originally a body of Libyans”. — Auch Reisner, Kerma II 555 schließt sich
dieser Theorie Bates’ an, und ebenso meint Emery-Kirwan S. 4 “certainly the archaeological evidence
gives very strong support to the Suggestion.” — Mir scheinen die von Bates vorgetragenen und von
Emery wiederholten Gründe für diese „libysche Hypothese“ sehr wenig stichhaltig zu sein.
Aniba I 19. — Zu der Bemerkung, daß Monneret de Villard die Festung Karanög in die Zeit von
etwa 1000 n. Chr. datiert (vgl. auch Monneret de Villard, La Nubia Medioevale I 106) teilt mir
Herr Randall Maclver das Folgende mit:
“In discussing what may have been the town to which the cemetery we called ‘Karanög’ belonged
(as to which I have a quite open mind, though I do not think the distance a final argument) you quote
with approval Monneret de Villard’s dating for the fortress as 1000 A. D. This is on p. 19 of your volume —
“Karanög mehrere Jahrhunderte jünger als der Friedhof” — I must venture to diff er entirely from
de Villard, and that on the strength of a long and minute study of the fortress, extending over many
weeks and accompanied by the most thorough excavations.
To any traveller through Lower Nubia who had not time for long study and who had not previous
experience of Meroitic sites no doubt the fortress of Karanög would be most deceptive. — Seeing it in
the two previous years on my reconnoitring expeditions I had taken for granted that it was mediaeval.
But after two seasons of digging on graves and houses of the Roman-Meroitic period I had become
accustomed to many surprises and had learned what the architectural peculiarities of this period were.
Woolley and I and my architect Mileham devoted much attention to the fort and after a very short
time were unanimous and never wavered in our opinion as to its Meroitic date.
It is to be remembered that Mileham and I also knew very well the mediaeval styles of building
in that region (we dug a whole series of churches in that region).
The actual Clearing and digging of the fort was done by Woolley, who published a small volume on
it in our Philadelphian series. An imaginative Chapter in which hedescribesits appearance as it would
have looked to a visiting Olympiodorus may not be to the taste of all readers but it is founded on
quite sound observations and inferences.
If you will read over this volume you will I think be fully satisfied that the Meroitic dating is the
right and only possible dating. The whole style of the building, and the objects found in it belong to the
Romano-Meroitic period and could not belong to any other. (Fragments of even the rather mediaeval
looking carved stone Windows were found by me on the site of the little ruined cemetery of Shablul the
year before.)— Nor are there any traces of later rebuilding or reuse.— In my opinion the fort was des-
troyed not later than the time of Justinian (probably by Silko) and has remained a ruin ever since.The
date of thits construction must lie between 100 and 500 A. D.
The existence of this and similar fortresses is a most importent matter in any attempt to reconstruct
the history Contemporary with the Romans and just preceding the Byzantine (cf. the attempt of a
sketch of the history in Chap. XII of our “Karanög, the Romano-Nubian Cemetery”, vol. 3 of the
Eckley Coxe jr. Expedition, see especially p. 90). The fort of Karanög must be taken in connection
with the forts of Begrash and Gebel Adda.
Aniba I 5f. — Über die Rassengehörigkeit der Leute der C-Gruppe vertritt Oric Bates (The
Eastern Libyans, an Essay (London 1914), Appendix I, On the “C-Group” — People of Nubia S. 245-252)
auf Grund von anthropologischen und archäologischen Beweisen die Hypothese, daß dieses Volk libyscher
Abkunft und mit den Söldnern der ägyptischen “pan-graves” verwandt sei. “I incline to believe that
the ‘Midde Nubians’ were originally a body of Libyans”. — Auch Reisner, Kerma II 555 schließt sich
dieser Theorie Bates’ an, und ebenso meint Emery-Kirwan S. 4 “certainly the archaeological evidence
gives very strong support to the Suggestion.” — Mir scheinen die von Bates vorgetragenen und von
Emery wiederholten Gründe für diese „libysche Hypothese“ sehr wenig stichhaltig zu sein.
Aniba I 19. — Zu der Bemerkung, daß Monneret de Villard die Festung Karanög in die Zeit von
etwa 1000 n. Chr. datiert (vgl. auch Monneret de Villard, La Nubia Medioevale I 106) teilt mir
Herr Randall Maclver das Folgende mit:
“In discussing what may have been the town to which the cemetery we called ‘Karanög’ belonged
(as to which I have a quite open mind, though I do not think the distance a final argument) you quote
with approval Monneret de Villard’s dating for the fortress as 1000 A. D. This is on p. 19 of your volume —
“Karanög mehrere Jahrhunderte jünger als der Friedhof” — I must venture to diff er entirely from
de Villard, and that on the strength of a long and minute study of the fortress, extending over many
weeks and accompanied by the most thorough excavations.
To any traveller through Lower Nubia who had not time for long study and who had not previous
experience of Meroitic sites no doubt the fortress of Karanög would be most deceptive. — Seeing it in
the two previous years on my reconnoitring expeditions I had taken for granted that it was mediaeval.
But after two seasons of digging on graves and houses of the Roman-Meroitic period I had become
accustomed to many surprises and had learned what the architectural peculiarities of this period were.
Woolley and I and my architect Mileham devoted much attention to the fort and after a very short
time were unanimous and never wavered in our opinion as to its Meroitic date.
It is to be remembered that Mileham and I also knew very well the mediaeval styles of building
in that region (we dug a whole series of churches in that region).
The actual Clearing and digging of the fort was done by Woolley, who published a small volume on
it in our Philadelphian series. An imaginative Chapter in which hedescribesits appearance as it would
have looked to a visiting Olympiodorus may not be to the taste of all readers but it is founded on
quite sound observations and inferences.
If you will read over this volume you will I think be fully satisfied that the Meroitic dating is the
right and only possible dating. The whole style of the building, and the objects found in it belong to the
Romano-Meroitic period and could not belong to any other. (Fragments of even the rather mediaeval
looking carved stone Windows were found by me on the site of the little ruined cemetery of Shablul the
year before.)— Nor are there any traces of later rebuilding or reuse.— In my opinion the fort was des-
troyed not later than the time of Justinian (probably by Silko) and has remained a ruin ever since.The
date of thits construction must lie between 100 and 500 A. D.
The existence of this and similar fortresses is a most importent matter in any attempt to reconstruct
the history Contemporary with the Romans and just preceding the Byzantine (cf. the attempt of a
sketch of the history in Chap. XII of our “Karanög, the Romano-Nubian Cemetery”, vol. 3 of the
Eckley Coxe jr. Expedition, see especially p. 90). The fort of Karanög must be taken in connection
with the forts of Begrash and Gebel Adda.