...
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 Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] MY take on it: Ta Seti was a city state (polity) in Upper Egypt. That city state was merged into Egypt in the dynastic period. The issue in question and the REAL problem is the area between the first cataract and the second cataract. On one hand in the predynastic period that area was occupied by Ta Seti. After unification, some say this area was uninhabited, hence the idea that the A-Group/Ta-Seti dissappeared. A key point to understand is that, as supercar pointed out, there is a difference between Ta-Seti (the nome) and Ta-Seti (the frontier). However, it is important to keep in mind that Ta-Seti represents the original culture of Ta-Seti (the A-Group) who merged INTO predynastic Egypt. It is THAT fact that makes ANY attempt to casually talk about Ta-Seti as being the home of the "Nubians" a distortion. Not only because Nubia as an entity never existed, but because it attampts to confuse the issue of Egypt's relation to it's southern neighbors and is a RUSE for taking the 1st Nome of Egypt and putting it into "Nubia".[/qb][/QUOTE]Agreed. [QUOTE][qb]What we really had was that the "frontier" areas of Egypt between the first cataract and the 3rd cataract were CONSTANTLY in a state of flux. There were MANY different groups who appeared at different times in this region and NONE of them identified themselves as NUBIANS. Some of these people were hostile to Egypt, some weren't. Therefore, it is inaccurate to LUMP all these people together as ONE ethnic group or nation called Nubia...[/qb][/QUOTE]Of course! Unfortunately that's what we have with the issue of 'Nubia'. *sigh* [QUOTE][qb]The reason being that if the border of Egypt was at the 3rd cataract in the Middle Kingdom, then saying that Thutmosis engaged in campaigns AGAINST the Nubians makes it hard to understand the CONTEXT in which this campaign occured and confuses or distorts the relationship between the Egyptians and Nubians once again. If you are talking about the Middle Kingdom just after the Second Intermediate Period, Egypt had been ASSISTED by its neighbors to the IMMEDIATE South between the 1st and 2nd cataract. Some say these people were vassals, some say colonized, but you have to be specific since there is a long way between the 1st cataract and the 3rd cataract. The Medjay were basically bedouins, not part of any "Nubia" but just ONE of the groups that appeared to the South of Egypt. Another was the Yam and another the Wawat and further south Kerma and Meroe. Lumping all of these people together only serves to confuse the whole issue and create a FAKE entity "Nubia". So when the campaigns in the south were taking place under Thutmosis, WHO were they attacking? The Medjay, The Wawat, The Yam or the Kushites? It wouldn't make sense for them to be attacking the Medjay, since these people ASSISTED the Egyptians with the Hyksos. This is why lumping these people all together as ONE group and calling campaigns against "Nubians" or "Nubia" as a campaign against a monolithic entity is not only erroneous but blatantly distorts reality by creating a FAKE distinction based on a PHONY ethnic distinction between Egyptians and those to the south.[/qb][/QUOTE]Indeed. Note the irony in that the enemy [the Kushites] which the 18th dynasty had campaigned against were 'Nubians', yet their allies [the Medjay] were also 'Nubians'. This has been pointed out here on this board countless times now. [QUOTE][qb]Case in point, if Ta-Seti (the nome) was PART of Egypt and was derived from people of the city state of Ta-Seti, then HOW could they be considered "Nubians". If archers came from the first Nome of Ta-Seti then why are they called "Nubians" and not just Egyptians? DId the bowmen from the first nome stop being the EXPERT archers their nome is NAMED for? Were the people SUBJECTS or were they EGYPTIANS? These questions will LARGELY be affected by how you view the whole idea of "Nubia". Basically, it just causes a DIVISION where there SHOULD be none. What about the prophecy of Neferti? Is that referring to Ta-Seti the first nome of Egypt or to another group further south? The answer should be obvious. And then what about the year 400 stela which relates that Ramesses was "Great of the Medjay"? What does that mean and what does THAT say about the relationship between Egypt and people to the South. I could go on and on, but suffice to say the relationship between Egypt and those to the south is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than simply Egypt vs Nubia or Egypt vs Nubians, which only CLOUDS the issue, not CLARIFIES anything. http://www.numibia.net/nubia/c-group2.htm Note how they associate Pan-Grave culture with Nubia and the Medjay even though they call the Medjay a DISTINCT people. Then why call them NUBIAN? Likewise, this page states that these "Nubian" archers were DARKER than their Egyptian counterparts, then goes on to mention the following: [QUOTE] The C-Group population was smaller and significantly more dark skinned than the contemporary Egyptian population. This shows not only in the results of osteological investigations but can also be seen in a wooden model of a company of archers from a tomb in Assiut, today in the Cairo Museum. There they wear a half-length coiffure with a headband and tight kilts, covered with beadwork. They were already employed in the Egyptian army in the Old Kingdom and played an important part in wars between the monarchs and in the unification process of Egypt during the First Intermediate Period. [/QUOTE]Well ok, lets start with Mentuhotep first King of the Middle Kingdom: [IMG]http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/mentuhotep23.jpg[/IMG] http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/mentuhotep2.htm Now lets look at some "Nubian" archers" [IMG]http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/jpegs/soldiers.jpeg[/IMG] http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/nubians.html Very interesting, but the King and the "Nubians" dont look much DIFFERENT. Even this page addresses the issue that these "Nubians" of the Pan-Grave culture were closer to Egypt than previously thought.... Also note how the natives on these digs, presumably from the AREA look.... [IMG]http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/hierakonpolis/jpegs/postholes.jpeg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/hierakonpolis/jpegs/web.jpeg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/jpegs/confident.jpeg[/IMG] Splitting images of ancient Egypt dont you think and also note how their features defy the STEREOTYPICAL black African feature type.... Finally, more Egyptian soldiers: [IMG]http://www.heru-ur.org/warfare/wrestling3.jpg[/IMG] http://www.heru-ur.org/warfare/soldier.html You should get the point by now.... [/qb][/QUOTE]It's quite simple the reason for the Nubian/Egyptian dichotomy-- to seperate Egypt from Africa where Nubia is African but Egypt isn't. Unfortunately for the Eurocentrics, when one examines the FACTS of this dilema one could easily note the flaws which then annihilate the whole farce that is the Nubian/Egyptian dichotomy. [/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