Draft:Kingdom of Yam

The Kingdom of Yam (Imȝm/Imȝ/Iȝm), was an ancient African kingdom whose location is currently unknown. It is referred to in a variety of Old Kingdom texts and a few Middle Kingdom and First Intermediate Period inscriptions. These sources claim that Yam was located south of Egypt, and was diplomatically connected to Wawat, Irtjet and Medja-land. There is extremely little evidence for the location of Yam; consequentially, innumerable locations can be theorized to be Yam. Currently, most scholars believe that Yam was located in Upper Nubia. However, there is a minority of academics which believe it was located in the Western Deserts of Egypt. Other proposed locations for Yam include the oases in eastern Libya and a location near the Kerma culture.

Route to Yam
The Autobiography of Harkhuf is the most detailed source for the location of Yam. Harkhuf was an Old Kingdom official who made three journeys to the kingdom during the reign of King Merenre I. He likely made a fourth journey during the reign of Pepi II. At least three of his trips, and likely all four, were made using a caravan pulled by donkeys. For at least two of the journeys, he sailed to Memphis for the final part of the return trip. German Egyptologist Elmar Edel analyzed the geographical data found in Harkhuf's biography and attempted to calculate the approximate distance from Egypt to Yam based on this data and estimates. He concluded that Yam was located in Upper Nubia, near the site of the Kerma culture. Elmar assumed that Harkhuf traveled at around 15 kilometers per hour and spent only ten days waiting in Yam for each trip. Using these premises, Edel estimated that the first journey was conducted over a distance of around 1,500 kilometers, while the second journey was conducted over a distance of 1,750 kilometers. If slower rates were accounted for, the trip would cover 1,000-1,500 kilometers for the first journey and 2,000-3,000 kilometers for the second journey.

Egyptologists David Dixon and Hans Goedicke critique this theory, arguing that it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Dixon argues that certain variables, such as the length of Harkhuf's stay in Yam, cannot be accurately determined. Dixon also argues that the caravan likely would have stopped for unspecified periods of time to rest or acquire food and water for the donkeys. Dr. David O'Connor, an Australian Egyptologist, disagrees with the perspective of Dixon and Goedicke. Dr. O'Connor believes that Harkhuf was attempting to travel to Yam, trade his goods, and return to Egypt as quickly as possible. Therefore, according to Dr. O'Connor, it is likely that Harkhuf did not spend a long stretch of time waiting in Yam. Using this reasoning, Dr O'Connor concludes that Elmar's assumption of ten days being spent in Yam is likely close to accurate. Furthermore, Dr. O'Connor argues that there is no evidence of any long stops during the trip, implying that the journey occurred at a near constant rate; this would mean that an accurate estimate of speed would provide an accurate estimate for the overall distance covered.

Estimating the distance between Yam and Egypt would require reconstructing the route of Harkhuf. In his second journey, he describes traveling down a road by the Elephantine. It is possible that Elephantine was the starting point for the journey. The text states that Harkhuf traveled along "the Elephantine road." There was no road running from Elephantine to the deserts east of Egypt and it is unlikely there was a road stretching south from the Elephantine to Nubia. Therefore, it is most likely that the Elephantine Road headed westward through Dunkul and into the Selima Oasis. This line has been interpreted as indicating that Elephantine was the starting point for the journey. However, David Dixon critiqued this narrative. Dixon cited another line from the text in which Harkhuf describes setting out from another region to travel along an oasis road. This line utilizes similar language as the first line. Dixon argues this indicates they both shared the same meaning. Therefore, according to Dixon, Harkhuf intended to say that he set forth from a different region and used the Elephantine road to head to Yam. Dixon and Edel argue that since Memphis was the final destination of the return journey, it is likely that is where the expedition started. However, the name of the road lacks the place name determinative, indicating the text may not accurately be read as "Elephantine road." Egyptologist Raymond Faulkner argued that the text should be read "Ivory road" instead. If this translation is accurate, then it is possible that Harkhuf was referring to Darb El Arba'īn, a primary Saharan trade route for ivory. This trade route ended at the Elephantine island. Dr. O'Connor argues that it would be impractical for donkey caravan to travel along the Elephantine Road by the Nile River. Henceforth, according to Dr. O'Connor, it is more likely that a large section of the journey occurred on boats. According to this viewpoint, the donkey caravan would have been assembled at the end of the boat trip and would have been used for the rest of the land-bound journey. If this theory were correct, then it would mean that Memphis was only the destination and possibly the starting point of the land-bound section of the journey.

Harkhuf describes another route called "Oasis road" in his third journey. This exact name of the road is unknown, the section of the hieroglyphs in the original text is destroyed. Jean Yoyotte, a French Egyptologist, argued that the inscription likely represented the 7th Upper Egyptian Nome of Hu. Edel argued that the inscription should be properly restored as the 8th Upper Egyptian Nome of Abydos. It may also have went from the Thinite Nome along a road by Girga then through various oases to Yam. The name of this road is often translated as "oasis," however it may more specifically mean Kharga or Dakhla. The "Oasis road" likely went through the Kurkur Oasis and Dunkul to Selima. Egyptologists Belova, Goedicke, and Yoyotte considered the possibility that Yam may have been located in these oases. Yoyotte argued that Yam was located closer to the Dunqul Oasis. Goedicke claimed that Yam was located near Dunqul or possibly the Kharga Oasis. However, Old Kingdom ruins found by Dakhla suggest that Yam was not located in these oases. If Yam was located in an area close by the Egyptians, it would be unlikely that Harkhuf would need to open new trade routes with the kingdom. Dixon argued that a small, impoverished oasis like Dunqul likely would not have been the location of Yam, which Dixon believed was likely a powerful and prosperous kingdom. Dr. O'Connor believed that these regions would have been located too close to Egypt to require a 7-to-8-month long journey. According to Dr. O'Connor, it is unlikely a region as important as the Kharga Oasis would have two entirely distinct names: Kharga and Yam. This proposed route for the oasis road is noted by various Egyptologists, including Dr. O'Connor, for its apparent impractically. The route takes a circular route around Lower Nubia to reach Upper Nubia, implying an intentional effort to avoid these areas. It is possible that hostilities between Egypt and Lower Nubia motivated this deliberate avoidance. Another possibility is that the journey to Kharga was a detour and not directly connected to Yam. Harkhuf describes the return journey to Egypt in his accounts of the second and third journeys. In the second journey he describes traveling from Yam to the "house of the ruler of Irtjet and Setju." In the third journey, Harkhuf describes traveling to a place on the border of Irtjet and Setju, He then traveled along Irtjet and sailed upstream to Memphis. The location of Irtjet is critical for understanding the location of Yam. Harkhuf claims that another kingdom named Wawat was located between Setju and Irtjet and that at one point it ruled both regions. All three regions are referred to Old Kingdom and some early Middle Kingdom texts. Wawat continues to appear in Egyptian texts until Ptolemaic times. Egyptian texts from Dynasty XII and onwards use the name "Wawat" to refer to all of Nubia. Scholars theorize that Lower Nubia during the time of the Old Kingdom was divided into three regions: Irtjet, Setju, and Wawat. Wawat likely was located between the Elephantine and Dakka areas. Irtjet likely was located between Dakka and the Toshka Lakes. Setju was likely located between the Toshka area and the Second Cataract. Dr. O'Connor argues that is unlikely Irtjet was located in Upper Nubia. According to Dr O'Connor, the return trip likely consisted of trips through western desert regions rather than any region close to the Nile river, excluding Upper Nubia. Egyptologist Jean Vercoutter claims that Yam was likely located west of Upper Nubia. Dr. O'Connor argued that the location of Yam may have been located much farther southwest then Vercoutter believed, possibly near Shendi. Other evidence for locating Irtjet in the Western Deserts is the language Harkhuf utilizes. He describes "descending" into these areas, like he was traveling from Upper Nubia to the lower parts of the Nile area. According to Dr. O'Connor, if Yam was located near Shendi, the trip would require traveling from Elephantine or Khargeh to Selima and then heading south around Upper Nubia. If Irtjet was located in Upper Nubia, possibly near Dongola, the return journey would consist of traversing the Bayuda desert and heading to Napata from which they could travel along a road near Meheila to Kerma or Saï before returning to Elephantine through Selima. This route may have been designed to account for the availability of water in these regions. Dr. O'Connor claims that this route would have covered a distance of 2,500 to 2,600 kilometers. He argues that this route is much closer to the estimated distance between Yam and Egypt then other routes. Dr. David O'Connor believed that Yam was almost certaintly not located north of Upper Nubia and was possibly located in Upper Nubia itself. The Yammites are referred to as a Nubian people on a stele from the tomb of Weni. Weni describes receiving boats made from acacia wood from the Yammites. Yam is mentioned as a conquered kingdom in a stele from the reign of Senusret I. The stele lists Yam in last place, possibly as a subsidiary of Kush or as its own independent entity located outside of Nubia. Sixth dynasty documents reference Yam as a Nubian region that presented a danger of revolt.

Another inscription found near Gabal El Uweinat mentions an Egyptian trade route with Yam. This implies a trail leading to Yam by Abu Ballas ending at Gilf Kebir was part of the route to Yam. This inscription is considered by Egyptologist Julien Cooper to be an issue with the theory that Yam was located in Upper Nubia. Cooper argues that is unlikely a location so distant from Upper Nubia and Egypt would serve as a trading post on a route between the two areas. Furthermore, the Yammites are described fighting nomadic peoples distant to the Egyptians. Harkhuf writes that they fought the Libyan Tjemehu people at "the corner of heaven." Such language typically refers to lands west or east of Egypt and is typically exclusive to Egyptian religious literature. The letter of Pepi II to Harkhuf calls the Yammite people the "horizon-dwellers." These texts suggest Yam may have been located in the Western Deserts rather than in Nubia. Sixth dynasty inscriptions from tombs near Qubbet el-Hawa mention officials entitled as the overseer of the foreign lands of Yam, Irtjet, and Medja. It is possible the Egyptians utilized terms such as "Yam" to refer to distance regions in the west rather than any specific region. Harkhuf may only have referred to a smaller subsection of this larger area. Egyptologist Müller-Wollerman argued that this inscription instead indicated that Yam was a Nubian kingdom. The scholar Lanny Bell argued that the document more specifically referred to "Egyptianized Nubians." According to Bell, the term was used to refer to Egyptians of Nubian ethnicity who often served in military or paramilitary groups. Egyptian-Yammite relations were heavily associated with Egyptian military interests. On his third return journey, Harkhuf was aided by the presence of Yammite soldiers. Harkhuf also discusses a mission to "pacify" the ruler of Yam and establish Egyptian diplomatic relations with the kingdom. Similar notions of "pacifying" Nubian rulers are found in the autobiography Heqaib; he discusses a mission to conquer the lands of Wawat and Irtjet.

Early Egyptologists theorized that Yam was located far south of Egypt, close to Shendi. The scholar H.K. Priese argued that Yam was synonymous with another ancient African kingdom called Irem. However, this theory is criticized by other historians. This theory could possibly explain the lack of mentions of the name "Yam" in Middle Kingdom documents. It is also possible that ecological changes had rendered water sources in the region scare, thereby making trade between Yam and Egypt impossible or forcing the Yammites to migrate to other regions. Goedicke argued that Yam was likely not a single entity, but instead a term used to refer to the deserts and oases west of Nubia.

Trade and Society
Harkhuf mentions various trade goods imported to Egypt from Yam. These trade goods include incense, oil, incense, panthers, leopards, sticks, dwarves or pygmies, ebony, and ivory. Some Egyptologists have argued that these products indicate Yam was located in Equitorial Africa. However, other Egyptologists, such as Elmar Edel, argue that all these products could be found in East African regions such as Punt. Although, Yam definitively is not located within Punt. Egyptologist Julien Cooper argues that the mentioned trade goods are nonspecific, only proving that the goods came from an East African market but not suggesting any more specific location for Yam. Cooper argues that is likely Yam was an intermediary between multiple trade networks throughout Africa. Another inscription dated to the Eleventh Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom depicts a prostrated Yammite trader holding an incense bowl. The incense mentioned in this text is also found mentioned in the funerary inscriptions of old kingdom officials and may have been native to Yam. It is unknown exactly why Yam and another kingdom called Tehkebet are mentioned in this inscription; it is possible that "Tekhebet" was an Egyptian term for the are and Yam was the endonym. There is evidence suggesting that trade with Yam was not uncommon in Old Kingdom Egypt. Harkhuf mentions "Oasis-dwellers" who wanted to raid the areas and the presence of a Yammite interpreter at one of these routes. Yam may also have been part of an extensive trade network throughout the Western Deserts. Archaeological excavation in the area has uncovered Egyptian ceramics and inscriptions references trade in the area.

Egyptologist Andrés Diego Espinel argues that the Uweinat rock inscription indicates the Yammite people may have displayed subordinance to Egypt. The inscription suggests the Yammites gave an oryx and other desert animals to the Egyptians as tribute. In Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt, an oryx was viewed as a valuable and profitable animal. In later periods of Egyptian history, the oryx was utilized in religious sacrifices. Espinel considers the delivery of these valued animals, possibly as tribute, to be evidence the Yammites were subject to Egyptian authority. There are no references to any urban structures in Yam, suggesting they may have been semi-nomadic pastoralists like the other people groups inhabiting western Sudan during the Old Kingdom. However, Dixon heavily disagrees with these analyses. According to Dixon, Yam was likely a powerful and wealthy kingdom. Yam is mentioned to have contained trade goods exclusive to the region, meaning either the products were native to Yam or the kingdom had strict control over the markets for those goods. The Yammites were capable of escorting Harkhuf through the Irtjet, Wawat, and Setju coalation. They also supplied soldiers and workers to the Egyptians. Dixon believed that this indicates the Yammites had a strong military. Egyptian documents mention other rulers, such as the leaders of Setju, Irtjet, and Wawat, acting subserviently to the Pharoah. However, no documents mention a Yammite ruler obeying Egyptian authority. Dixon argues that this implies the Yammite kingdom was powerful enough to resist Egyptian authority.

Name
The Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs for Yam are often transliterated as Imȝm, Iȝm, or Imȝ. There is little evidence supporting each transliteration, however most scholars prefer Imȝm. Egyptian "I" also likely represented the /j/ phoneme and Egyptian "ȝ" likely also represented the /r/ and /l/ phonemes. Therefore, it is possible the hieroglyphs could have been read /ʔmr/, /ʔrm/ or /jmr/. Another, different, inscription mentioning Yam bears characteristics unlike other renditions of the name. It is possible that the unusual characteristics of this inscription are due to an attempt at rendering foreign words into Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Harkhuf inscription contains two toponyms which may refer to subregions of Yam: Imȝ-Wtnt and Imȝ-Ns. However, "Imȝ" may just refer the type of location, such a village or kingdom, and the ensuing words may reference the name of that entity. If this were true, then these toponyms may not refer to locations within Yam.

The Egyptian word for "Iȝm.w/Imȝ.w," meaning "tent, encampment," is similar to the word for Yam. It is also similar to an Egyptian word for a type of tree, "Imȝ." This word is included in the Egyptian toponym "Sh.wt-iȝmw," meaning "fields of Imȝ-trees." It possibly refers to the Western Desert which possibly included Yam. It is possible that the Egyptian word "Imȝ" is connected to the Beja word "ʔaba," which refers to Wadi El Khor. This possible etymological connection indicates that the Egyptian word may have also referred to a geographical feature rather than a specific kingdom or city within the region. The word "Imȝ" may also be connected with various other toponymic words in Cushitic languages. The Agaw word for village, "muri" and the Afro-Asiatic root word "ʔrm," also meaning "village" may be related to "Imȝ." It is also possible that the Teda word "emi," meaning "berg," and possibly "eneri," meaning "wadi" are connected to the Egyptian word.