...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Arguments Against Qustul....
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: [qb] You, yourself, is guilty of the very same contradictions that you accuse others of. You keep saying "Egypt" as if it were always a unified single nation. Of course, by the old kingdom, Ta-Seti was part of the "unified" Egyptian state. The processes of this does indeed appear to have taken place in the predynastic times, but to state that the "A-group" had no separate polity of their own, and were one and same with the "Nagada" groups, would require substantiation.[/qb][/QUOTE]As an aside, my response to your post was not directed at YOU or to EDUCATE YOU per say, but more to trying to clarify the issues surrounding Qustul in terms of its relation to Egypt. I didnt mean for you to get the impression that I was solely responding to YOU directly. I wasnt trying to say that the A-Group and the Naquadan populations eventually merged and that the cultural artifacts became part of what was to become Egyptian cultural artifacts. Seeing that many A-Group motifs share similar styles to later dynastic themes, it would make sense that this fused group and culture would be so similar as not to be indistinguishable. MY point is that yes the A-Group /Ta-Seti was a distinct group, but not distinct as in SEPARATE from the groups and forces that eventually merged and became Egypt. There is a difference between the REAL cultural/polical differences between the early A-Group and Naquadan groups, however that is DIFFERENT than the FAKE separation introduced by Egyptologists trying to reinforce the idea of a SEPARATE and DISTINCT Nubian identity which NEVER existed and putting Ta-Seti into that identity in order to SEPARATE it from Egypt. This effort only CONFUSES the relationship between the two, puts MORE emphasis on Hierankopolis and Abydos as precursors for Egyptian dynastic culture, while IGNORING all the cultural pre-cursors that are found in Ta-Seti and hinted at in the areas found prior to the creation of Lake Nasser. http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/nubian.html [QUOTE] A possible explanation for this is that A-Group society was so similar to that in predynastic Upper Egypt that there was a kind of equilibrium between them. These Nubian people were not living in the shade of the predynastic Egyptians, nor were they subservient to them in a colonial way. They had no need to leave their home in order to find food or employment in the big city. Given the growing desire for exotic goods like the obsidian from the temple, A-Group Nubians likely came to Egypt for transactions! [/QUOTE]First off, this page proposes trying to figure out the relationship between A-Group "Nubians" and predynastic Egypt. The PROBLEM is that the A-Group was just as much PART of predynastic Egypt as ANY OTHER GROUP in that area. Therefore, this is again an attempt to REINFORCE a FAKE separation between Ta-Seti, which was PART of Egypt, and the rest of Dynastic Egypt, by creating a FICTIONAL association with NUBIA as if NUBIA actually existed. The relationship of Ta-Seti and other Predynastic groups is not a relationship between "Nubians" and predynastic Egyptians, it is a relationship between AMONG various city states and chiefs. Which REALLY means that the A-Group were INDISTINGUISHABLE from other upper Egyptian predynastic groups of the time, with NUBIA having NOTHING to do with the relationship, since NUBIA did NOT exist. They were culturally, ethnically and politically CLOSER together than apart, but the whole REASON for FORCING them to be part of this FICTIONAL NUBIAN entity is to DIMINISH that fact. THEREFORE, any ARTIFACTS found will of COURSE be misconstrued based on this ERRONEOUS pre-existing belief in NUBIA as an actual historical entity, when it ISNT. The whole DISTINCTION between these groups on the upper nile is more cultural and subtle than what Egyptologists want to signify. It is impossible for people THAT close together to be THAT different ethnically or culturally. Yet the whole creation of NUBIA does just that, creates a FAKE ethnicity that they can use to separate and categorize people with NO RELATION to the facts. Therefore, you have to look at Qustul and everything found there in a DIFFERENT light than being NUBIAN. Qustul SHOULD be looked at as a PRINCIPLE force behind the creation of Dynastic Egypt and the A-Group as being ONE of the central groups to this process. That is based on the evidence. But to see this you HAVE to ignore the CONSTANT and REPEATED references to Nubia by archaeologists and Egyptologists who have found these artifacts and make theories as to their meaning. Bottom line, what I am talking about is a forced separation of Egypt from its neighbors to the South and a FAKE entity called Nubia created to fill the space between the southern borders of Egypt all the way to the Sudan... Look at this map: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/egypt/Map-predynEgypt.jpg Ta-Seti/A-Group culture stretches all the way down to the second cataract. Note that MAP shows Ta-Seti extending deep to the south. Now, if what is below Lake Nasser is to be believed, there is a possibility that there was a complex culture there prior to or during the predynastic period in and around Abydos and Naquada. Either way, Ta-Seti was not Nubia it was Ta-Seti and therefore the relationship between the two is expressed in the fact that Ta-Seti, land of the bow, is also called Land of the Founders. Self explanatory dont you think? Another key question is whether the first dynasty border of Egypt was at the second cataract or at the first cataract. ACTUALLY this is the KEY question. If the border was at the second cataract, as it was during the middle kindom, then that puts Ta-Seti ENTIRELY in Egypt and makes Ta Seti PART of Egypt, with the nome being the ENTIRE land of Ta-Seti, not JUST up to the 1st cataract. Either way you have to get rid of this NONSENSE of Ta-Seti being part of something called Nubia, Nubia DID NOT EXIST as a separate country, civilization or culture. Note also that the major fortresses of Buhen and Abu Simbel are also SOUTH of Ta Seti. Therefore, these FORTS were NOT to protect against people from Ta Seti as "Nubians" and had NOTHING to do with them, once again showing how labelling the people of Ta Seti as Nubians is FAKE. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3