and Ethiopia, and in these descriptions he clearly shows that
travelers were able to visit these areas with few problems. In-
deed, some of his descriptions are similar to those of 19th-
century European anthropologists, who similarly traveled in
these regions with freedom.
Th e trade routes from North Africa that cut through
the Sahara had been traveled by merchants throughout an-
cient times. A number of these routes connected modern-day
Morocco with the source of the Niger River, and others con-
nected the port cities of modern-day Algeria, Tunisia, and
Libya with sub-Saharan Africa. Much of this can be seen in
ancient drawings of chariots, which may have been used for
trade or perhaps for sport or even war. Although there are no
records of hostility or friendship between the people of the
Sahara and foreigners, the fact that merchants continued to
venture across the desert indicates a certain mutual interest
in trade.
Maritime expeditions were organized both through the
Straits of Gibraltar around the west coast of Africa and from
the Red Sea down the east coast to Zanzibar. Certainly the
Carthaginians ventured to West Africa. Some accounts of
travelers survive, usually secondhand. Some goods from the
west coast of Africa did make their way into the Mediterra-
nean and vice versa, and it seems likely that many merchants
would have attempted to make contact with the source of the
items wanted, mainly gold and ivory.
Pursuing this and other theories, in 1969–1970 Th or
Heyerdahl, in his two Ra ex ped it ions, was able to fi t out a boat
similar to those used by the Egyptians, made by boat builders
from modern-day Chad, and sail across the Atlantic Ocean
on his second attempt. With a similarly constructed boat,
Tigris, Heyerdahl showed in 1979 it was possible for Sumeri-
ans to have sailed to Africa. Arabs certainly traded with East
Africa, and the Alexandrian Greek handbook Th e Peripleus
of the Erythean Sea describes people living along the Somali
coast and Juba as being “men of the tallest stature.” Some his-
torians see this portrayal as suggesting that, in the absence of
any description of them as blacks, they were not. Th at such
voyages could have taken place on an ongoing basis, and pos-
sibly did, does not indicate the reactions of Africans to the ar-
rival of foreigners. However, the existence of maritime trade
routes suggests that there was extensive harmonious contact.
Th e presence of early silk in the northeast corner of Madagas-
car shows that there was trade with Southeast Asia.
Archaeological work in central and southern Africa has
not shown much contact throughout the African continent
in ancient times, though it would seem likely that it did exist.
With no written records, attitudes to foreigners are hard to
extrapolate. Archaeologists have drawn confl icting conclu-
sions about the nature of central and southern African civi-
lizations based on pottery fragments, but linguistic analysis
provides evidence of a level of contact, interaction, and use of
loan words between diff erent groups of people. For example,
many words are common to 300 Bantu languages spoken
from Duala in modern-day Cameroon to the East African
coast and as far south as the Xhosa in modern-day South
Africa. Th ese language similarities indicate that diff erent
groups interacted; the words for “palm tree” and “fi g tree,”
for example, are the same even in areas where these trees are
not found. When combined with analysis of iron tools and
some pottery designs, it is easy to see that contact over wide
areas took place.EGYPT
BY MARIE PASSANANTE
Th e Greek historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt in the
fi ft h century b.c.e., was able to observe Egyptian attitudes
toward foreigners at a time when the population of foreign-
ers in Egypt was at its peak. According to Herodotus, Egyp-
tians considered anyone who could not speak the Egyptian
language a barbarian. Th e Egyptians defi ned themselves by
their land and culture, not by physical characteristics. In ef-
fect, a foreigner could become Egyptian by adapting Egyp-
tian customs, a process that was not discouraged. However,
the Egyptians also viewed their neighbors in a more practical
light; foreigners could be enemies. Egyptian kings affi rmed
their right to rule by their victories over their enemies and
described themselves in the language of conquerors. For in-
stance, the king was the one “who repels the Nine Bows” or
“who protects Egypt and who curbs the foreign lands.”
Th e Nine Bows represented the peoples conquered by
Eg y pt, eit her t hrough submission or defeat in war. Th ese peo-
ples were represented by bows a lone or a s i nd iv idu a l pr isoners
labeled with their nationalities. Th e bow itself was a generic
symbol representing the men of a tribe. As the geography
of the ancient world changed, so did the names on the list;
however, the number of peoples remained nine. Th e nations
named included Nubians, Libyans, and Asiatics. Because
these nations typically were named as enemies of Egypt, it is
easy to believe that the Nine Bows represented the enemies
of Egypt. However, Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt were also
listed among the Nine Bows. In addition, the Nine Bows oft en
were depicted alongside the rekhyt bird, which represents the
Egyptian people. Th e Nine Bows defi ned all the peoples of the
ancient world—Egyptian and non-Egyptian alike—as being
equally subject to Egypt. Th e earliest depiction of the Nine
Bows is on the ceremonial mace head of King Scorpion (Early
Dynastic Period, ca. 2920–2575 b.c.e.) found at Hierakon-
polis in Upper Egypt. A statue of King Djoser (r. 2630–2611
b.c.e.) portrays the bows underneath the feet of the king; the
trampling of the Nine Bows by the king was a vivid represen-
tation of the king’s power over the peoples of the world and
was used throughout Egyptian history.
Similar to the Nine Bows are the lists recorded in the
execration texts. Execration texts were written on pottery or
statuettes of prisoners and list foreign kings and peoples, in-
cluding the countries of Nubia—Irtjet, Wawat, Yam, Medja,
and Satju—and cities throughout Palestine. Th e peoples
listed may or may not have been current enemies; for exam-484 foreigners and barbarians: Egypt