But wasn't the point of your posting that piece, about making the connection between the Pharaoh's adversaries on the so-called "Narmer's Palette" and "Libyans", or in particular, the "Tehenu"? Otherwise, there is no point in posting stuff that has no bearing on the Narmer Palette itself. The OP inquires about the Narmer Palette, not some substitute for the Narmer Palette.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I didn't say they were Libyans per-say but my theory is that the predynastic Delta people were of Libyan origin that is from directly west of the Delta and not necessarily Tehenu who were Libyans proper who were located southwest of the Delta. I'll explain this all in Takruri's thread soon enough.
Right; the question still stands. I'll be on the lookout for your post, when it is up and ready.
Mind you, I understand that your theories around other alleged lines of evidence [namely archaeology for instance] does not have any direct bearing on the observation that the Narmer Palette itself does not in any way specifically tie the depicted adversaries of the Pharoah to "Libyans". This observation of course, is subject to revision, should compelling evidence to the contrary be brought forward.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
B|tch how stupid are you??!! AGAIN, I will repeat... How the f*ck can this be a "civil war" when Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt were 2 SEPARATE COUNTRIES in the first place?!! This was a war of conquest and unification! Even the most elementary school book texts say Egypt was the result of union between 2 lands-- Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt! Even throughout the rest of dynastic times, Kmt (Egypt) was referred to as the 2 lands!
Now if you can't understand this simple concept, then I can't help you.
As far as non-textual-specific evidence goes, no evidence of an actual major Lower Egyptian predynastic centralized polity has come to the surface; evidence suggested that centralized political structuring existed in Upper Egypt, however. Again, any new evidence to the contrary in this regard, would be welcome.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And there is actual evidence to support my claim than those of yours that they are of Asian descent! Your opinions on them looking Syrian are just that and nothing more. It is not based on evidence but rather idiocy!]
Notice how the b!tch posts material in her attempt to debunk my viewpoint that the enemies depicted on Narmers Palette were indigenous Africans, when her own sources actually debunk her own notion that they were Asiatics.
In contrary to what the bird brained lioness wants to believe, Ian Shaw doesn't subscribe to the view that the depicted enemies were Asiatics. Obviously, ''foreigners'' isn't mutually exclusive with what I've said, because Lower Egypt was not really a part of the Upper Egyptian proto state. In fact, certain Africans to the South had much more in common with Upper Egypt than Lower Egypt at that time.
Contemporary Lower Egyptians were more of a loose patchwork of different groups, and thus, them being described as foreigners, in no way conflicts with my views.
Stop and think for a second how obtuse she has to be, to systematically post sources that actually debunk her own views, while all the while being engulfed in some sort of illusion, that she's debunking other people's views.
Then she talks about how unlikely it is that the enemies were Egyptians, because the Pharaoh's supposedly never smited their own people, when ..
posted
^ Yes, it's pathetic the how the lyinass troll is so desperate as to feign winning a debate when all the sources SHE cites debunks her dumbass and even use ME as a supporter! LOL
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Right; the question still stands. I'll be on the lookout for your post, when it is up and ready.
Mind you, I understand that your theories around other alleged lines of evidence [namely archaeology for instance] does not have any direct bearing on the observation that the Narmer Palette itself does not in any way specifically tie the depicted adversaries of the Pharoah to "Libyans". This observation of course, is subject to revision, should compelling evidence to the contrary be brought forward.
Of course! Again, my theory is that the Delta folk have connections to Libyans even common origins but NOT that they were Libyans proper. In the same way that culturally Upper Egypt has connections to Nubians but to say that Upper Egyptians are Nubians is a stretch.
quote:As far as non-textual-specific evidence goes, no evidence of an actual major Lower Egyptian predynastic centralized polity has come to the surface; evidence suggested that centralized political structuring existed in Upper Egypt, however. Again, any new evidence to the contrary in this regard, would be welcome.
I never said there was a central policy in Lower Egypt, only that it was an entirely different country from Upper Egypt (Obviously to those knowledgeable). The archaeology does show that the region consisted of a loose confederation of chiefdoms or nomes but no central authority. This may then support the current theory that the conquest of the Delta may have literally taken one town at a time and further support the theory Troll Patrol pointed out about the papyrus reeds meaning he conquered 6000 enemies.
Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass worm: Don't take my word for it. Take the word of lyinass team member Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Delta natives are descendants of Libyans from farther west
you got a problem???
The only one with a problem is YOU, twit! I'm NOT your team member and NEVER will be!
Yes Delta natives are descendants of Libyans the same way Valley descendants are descendants of Nubians! What's your point? BOTH are different groups of different cultures and thus DIFFERENT people i.e. FOREIGNERS to each other!
Also you cling to this notion that the defeated Delta folk were Asiatic when there is NO evidence whatsoever to support such an assertion.
How many times must we cite Kemp's passage showing the skeletons of the Delta to be African and showing NO relation to the Levant, trick??!
Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
But wasn't the point of your posting that piece, about making the connection between the Pharaoh's adversaries on the so-called "Narmer's Palette" and "Libyans", or in particular, the "Tehenu"? Otherwise, there is no point in posting stuff that has no bearing on the Narmer Palette itself. The OP inquires about the Narmer Palette, not some substitute for the Narmer Palette.
This is a fair point. Actually the item was a Narmer ivory cylinder not the mace head. That was suggesting a context for what's on the palette but not necessarily
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass worm: Don't take my word for it. Take the word of lyinass team member Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Djehoottie:
Delta natives are descendants of Libyans from farther west
you got a problem???
The only one with a problem is YOU, twit! I'm NOT your team member and NEVER will be!
Yes Delta natives are descendants of Libyans the same way Valley descendants are descendants of Nubians! What's your point? BOTH are different groups of different cultures and thus DIFFERENT people i.e. FOREIGNERS to each other!
Also you cling to this notion that the defeated Delta folk were Asiatic when there is NO evidence whatsoever to support such an assertion.
How many times must we cite Kemp's passage showing the skeletons of the Delta to be African and showing NO relation to the Levant, trick??!
Once lioness productions put's you on the team you have no choice in the matter. It's like a gang.
The main point was not Asiatics or Libyans. (and that the people of the Delta you keep saying they were of Libyan descent but offering no proof)
BUT The main point was about the figure grabbed by Narmer and the similar type head with falcon hooking his nose -are these foreigners or Egyptians?
you say foreigners. I also say foreigners
Troll Patty and Sweetnet say Egyptians,
the Explorer I don't know
you seem to imply perhaps that some Egyptians were of Libyan descent, you will have to elaborate sounds " cake and eat it too-ish"
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patty:
The most famous artifact of the Unification period is NARMER Palette which evidences the characters of the warrior god-king. Victorious over Delta peoles he wears the Red Crown of Lower Egypt; many discussions have been made about two main arguments concerning Narmer Palette's actual meaning: a sort of chronicle of Egypt Unification, or of a mere retaliation and rebels punishment; the symbolic representation of the king power; the origin of the defeated enemies: Libyans, western Delta inhabitants, eastern Delta rebels, Sinai bedawins, Asiatics.
Narmer macehead seems to depict a post bellic event; no traces of battle in course but the prisoners and the booty of war are shown (cattle in an enclosure) and enumerated.
REFERENCES
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix, 1992. Préhistoire de l’Égypte. Des premiers hommes aux premiers pharaons, Paris : Armand Colin Éditeur.
as you can see Troll Patty is also in danger of being forceably allied to lioness productions units
posted
^ I give up with this dumb twit. Can someone else try explaining to worm that Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians WERE foreigners to each other during that time?? Perhaps you might have better luck. Or perhaps not. Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The overall military symbolism on the palette is clear. Using different types of imagery, the king is shown again and again as victorious over his enemies. He is shown striking down a kneeling enemy, whilst stepping on the bodies of some other foes on the palette's back. On the front of the palette, he is represented as a human overlooking the decapitated corpses of his foes or as a bull vigorously trampling an enemy and breaking down the walls of a city or a fortress.
The fact that the king is represented on one side wearing the crown of Upper Egypt, the region from whence he came, and on the other side the crown of Lower Egypt is very often seen as proof that the Upper-Egyptian Narmer was the one who successfully conquered Lower Egypt or part thereof.
The association of the Red Crown with Lower Egypt can not be doubted for later periods of the Ancient Egyptian history, but this association may not have been made during or before the Early Dynastic Period. Indeed, a pottery fragment dated several generations before Narmer and found in Upper Egypt already bears the representation of the Red Crown. It is thus possible that the Red Crown indicated a different aspect of royalty than the White Crown and did not, at that time, have any geographical meaning at all. That Narmer is represented wearing the Red Crown would, in this case, not prove that he conquered or ruled the whole of Lower Egypt.
But even despite the doubt concerning the meaning of the representation of the Red Crown, it still is clear that the decoration on the palette refers to an important military campaign waged by Narmer against a marshy area. Three names of cities or fortresses that were overthrown during this campaign are mentioned and even though we do not know which places these names refer to, they were part of the conquered marsh lands. The fact that their names and the name of a fallen enemy are mentioned on the palette points to the great importance Narmer attached to this conquest.
The palette also refers to the foundation of a region indicated by the signs ship-harpoon-falcon, a group of signs that at least in later times would be used to denote the 7th Lower Egyptian province located in the eastern Nile Delta. If this group of signs indeed can be interpreted as the founding of a province in the eastern Nile Delta then the Narmer Palette can still be viewed as a historical document referring to the conquest of the eastern part of Lower Egypt.
quote: Originally posted by the l'ass:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
"The interpretation of the Narmer Palette seems clear: Narmer is represented wearing both Egyptian crowns; he conquers lands and overthrows the enemy. He is inspecting the victims of his war. The Narmer Palette deals with a war, but also dramatically indicates one of the most important events in the history of Ancient Egypt : the unification of the two lands, the first attestation of this event."
REFERENCES
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix, 1992. Préhistoire de l’Égypte. Des premiers hommes aux premiers pharaons, Paris : Armand Colin Éditeur.
It is not clear who the enemies are on the palette and if the person being grabbed by Narmer is an Egyptian or foreigner.
l'ass
REpost!lol
Ancient Egypt: a very short introduction by Ian Shaw
quote: Günter Dreyer suggests that one scene on the palette, of Narmer in the White Crown of Upper Egypt smiting a bearded enemy, is the same as one on an inscribed ivory label from Cemetery B at Abydos (see below). Three scenes on this label possibly make up a “year name” from Narmer’s reign, during which the king won a victory over the Libyans.
Furthermore,
An alternative interpretation for this symbol that has sometimes been forwarded, would be that each papyrus plant represents the number 1000 and that the falcon-king subdued 6000 enemies.
The papyrus plant was indeed used in later hieroglyphic writing to write the number 1000, but it was drawn in a somewhat different manner than the papyrus plants on the palette. Furthermore, it is not so certain that the signs used at the very beginning of hieroglyphic writing, have the same phonetic or even ideographic meaning. The alternative interpretation seems a bit too far-fetched.
Narmer strikes down a foe. Many Egyptologists have been tempted to interpret this scene as the conquest of Lower Egypt by Narmer.
Most of the back side of the palette is taken up by a finely carved and highly detailed raised relief showing a king, undoubtedly Narmer, ready to strike down a foe whom he grabs by the hair. This pose would become typical in Ancient Egyptian art. He wears a short skirt, an animal's tail and the crown that at least in later times was associated with Upper Egypt: the White Crown.
Behind him an apparently bald person holds the king's sandals in his left hand and a basket in his right. The signs written behind this man's head may denote his title, but their exact reading and meaning are unsure. The fact that the king is represented as barefooted and followed by a sandal-bearer perhaps suggests a ritual nature for the scene depicted on the palette.
Two dead enemies, symbolising conquered towns, are represented underneath Narmer's feet.
Narmer inspects a heap of beheaded corpses, likely to represent slain enemies after the battle.
quote:
The taming of wild animals has often been viewed as a metaphor for the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt.
Of course! Again, my theory is that the Delta folk have connections to Libyans even common origins but NOT that they were Libyans proper. In the same way that culturally Upper Egypt has connections to Nubians but to say that Upper Egyptians are Nubians is a stretch.
That is because the whole concept of "Nubians" in antiquity is bogus! There was no such thing as "Nubians" in antiquity.
As for the contemporary application of the term, there are so-called "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, who are Egyptians. I am not even familiar with any of these so-called modern "Nubians" from Upper Egypt to Sudan which actually name themselves as simply "Nubians", as opposed to their own specific respective names of their ethnic groups.
quote: I never said there was a central policy in Lower Egypt, only that it was an entirely different country from Upper Egypt (Obviously to those knowledgeable).
But when you say "two different countries", as you had done earlier, that seems to tacitly suggest two different centralized polities. No archaeological evidence comes to mind which suggests that the territory on which modern Egypt now lies, was divided into two rivaling regional powers or countries prior to the centralization of the territory under a unified centralized Dynastic system.
quote:The archaeology does show that the region consisted of a loose confederation of chiefdoms or nomes but no central authority.
I suppose it's safe to assume that there were "chiefdoms" in the Lower Egyptian areas during the predynastic period, but what evidence speaks to confederacy?
quote: This may then support the current theory that the conquest of the Delta may have literally taken one town at a time and further support the theory Troll Patrol pointed out about the papyrus reeds meaning he conquered 6000 enemies.
This has been part of the long-held theory built around the Narmer Palette that came to attention for as long as I've known about the palette, barring the speculations of a visible minority which speaks of a scenery of an 'Egyptian-Libyan' conflict on the palette.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: That is because the whole concept of "Nubians" in antiquity is bogus! There was no such thing as "Nubians" in antiquity.
As for the contemporary application of the term, there are so-called "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, who are Egyptians. I am not even familiar with any of these so-called modern "Nubians" from Upper Egypt to Sudan which actually name themselves as simply "Nubians", as opposed to their own specific respective names of their ethnic groups.
By "Nubian" I meant simply the region south of Aswan. We know Upper Egyptians are culturally closely related to peoples in that region per Qustul.
quote:But when you say "two different countries", as you had done earlier, that seems to tacitly suggest two different centralized polities. No archaeological evidence comes to mind which suggests that the territory on which modern Egypt now lies, was divided into two rivaling regional powers or countries prior to the centralization of the territory under a unified centralized Dynastic system.
Country is not necessarily the same as nation-state if that is what you are thinking. By country I simply meant an inhabited region.
quote:I suppose it's safe to assume that there were "chiefdoms" in the Lower Egyptian areas during the predynastic period, but what evidence speaks to confederacy?
Wrong choice of wording then. The archaeology shows village settlements in the area that were in close association with each other. Of course the exact political relations are unknown.
quote:This has been part of the long-held theory built around the Narmer Palette that came to attention for as long as I've known about the palette, barring the speculations of a visible minority which speaks of a scenery of an 'Egyptian-Libyan' conflict on the palette.
Again. Technically speaking there was no 'Egypt' as most of us know it. There were two regions-- the Nile Delta (Lower Egypt) and the Nile Valley (Upper Egypt). The peoples of these regions were of two different cultures and as you pointed out the Valley folk were politically united under a central king.
In the 'Tale of Sinuhe', Sinuhe who was an army officer of the Delta upon visiting Upper Egypt exclaimed that he could barely understand the dialect of the Upper Egyptians and that their appearances, attires, customs, along with their speech are all as if he was visiting an entirely different country. This is because before Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt were united, they were two different countries or regions if you prefer.
Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
By "Nubian" I meant simply the region south of Aswan. We know Upper Egyptians are culturally closely related to peoples in that region per Qustul.
I was correcting the misconception that seems to underlie your post, which seems to allude to some kind of mutual exclusivity between "Upper Egyptians" and "Nubians".
quote:Country is not necessarily the same as nation-state if that is what you are thinking. By country I simply meant an inhabited region.
Again, your invocation of "two different countries" is suggestive of two rivaling polities, especially in light of the scenery on the "Narmer Palette", which is the subject of this thread. And yes, that would be akin to "two nation-states". I wouldn't describe the Delta region as a separate "country" from the Upper Nile Valley areas, because predynastic territory of what now makes up Egypt was a complex of various discrete--and not necessarily united--local social-complexes.
quote:
quote:This has been part of the long-held theory built around the Narmer Palette that came to attention for as long as I've known about the palette, barring the speculations of a visible minority which speaks of a scenery of an 'Egyptian-Libyan' conflict on the palette. [/qb]
Again. Technically speaking there was no 'Egypt' as most of us know it. There were two regions-- the Nile Delta (Lower Egypt) and the Nile Valley (Upper Egypt).
Hence, "Egyptian-Libyan" in those quotation marks. Because I understand that they are contemporary applications.
As for regions along the Egyptian Nile Valley, it need not be two; the region could have been broken down to localities, which would be suitable with view to those "chiefdoms" you mentioned yourself, for example.
The Delta region is part of the Nile Valley.
quote:The peoples of these regions were of two different cultures and as you pointed out the Valley folk were politically united under a central king.
What were the names of these "two" cultures, and their specificity?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Delta region is part of the Nile Valley.
What evidence are you basing it on, that the Delta is a part of the Nile Valley?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
But I was reading about Nile Delta Nile Valley correlations.
It's an interesting subject to look, into, at how these regions have evolved.
What happens when sea level rises?
The Nile Delta is one of the oldest intensely cultivated areas on earth. It is very heavily populated, with population densities up to 1600 inhabitants per square kilometer. Deserts surround the low-lying, fertile floodplains. Only 2,5% of Egypt's land area, the Nile Delta and the Nile Valley, is suitable for intensive agriculture. Most of a 50 km wide land strip along the coast is less than 2 m above sea level and is protected from flooding by a 1 to 10 km wide coastal sand belt only, shaped by discharge of the Rosetta and Damietta branches of the Nile. Erosion of the protective sand belt is a serious problem and has accelerated since the construction of the Aswan Dam.
Rising sea levels would destroy weak parts of the sand belt, which is essential for the protection of lagoons and the low-lying reclaimed lands. The impact would be very serious. One third of Egypt’s fish catches are made in the lagoons. Sea level rise would change the water quality and affect most fresh water fish. Valuable agricultural land would be inundated. Vital, low-lying installations in Alexandria and Port Said would be threatened. Recreational tourism beach facilities would be endangered and essential groundwater would be salinated. Dykes and protective measurements would probably prevent the worst flooding up to a 50 cm sea level rise. However, it would cause serious groundwater salination and the impact of increasing wave action would be serious.
posted
^ Unfortunately because of the silt deposits, archaeological findings are quite poor in contrast to the drier areas of the Valley were materials are better preserved.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I was correcting the misconception that seems to underlie your post, which seems to allude to some kind of mutual exclusivity between "Upper Egyptians" and "Nubians".
How can such a misconception underline my post which states Upper Egyptians are descended from Nubians?!
quote:Again, your invocation of "two different countries" is suggestive of two rivaling polities, especially in light of the scenery on the "Narmer Palette", which is the subject of this thread. And yes, that would be akin to "two nation-states". I wouldn't describe the Delta region as a separate "country" from the Upper Nile Valley areas, because predynastic territory of what now makes up Egypt was a complex of various discrete--and not necessarily united--local social-complexes.
And again you seem to mistake my use of country for nation or nation-state. By 'country' I simply mean an inhabited region. I made no mention of polity whether centralized or not.
quote:Hence, "Egyptian-Libyan" in those quotation marks. Because I understand that they are contemporary applications.
Of course. Idiotic minds like lyinass fail to comprehend this. Egypt or Kmt as it were called came to be once the Delta was united with the valley under a centralized polity or authority.
quote:As for regions along the Egyptian Nile Valley, it need not be two; the region could have been broken down to localities, which would be suitable with view to those "chiefdoms" you mentioned yourself, for example.
The Delta region is part of the Nile Valley.
Yes geographically the Delta is part of the Valley but in terms of culture or even politically they obviously were not.
quote:What were the names of these "two" cultures, and their specificity?
Well according to the Upper Egyptians the Delta people were known as 'People of the Marsh', a label still used during dynastic times.
Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
By "Nubian" I meant simply the region south of Aswan. We know Upper Egyptians are culturally closely related to peoples in that region per Qustul.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I was correcting the misconception that seems to underlie your post, which seems to allude to some kind of mutual exclusivity between "Upper Egyptians" and "Nubians".
what if someone were to suggest that Kushites are exclusive of Egyptians?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Again, your invocation of "two different countries" is suggestive of two rivaling polities, especially in light of the scenery on the "Narmer Palette", which is the subject of this thread. And yes, that would be akin to "two nation-states". I wouldn't describe the Delta region as a separate "country" from the Upper Nile Valley areas, because predynastic territory of what now makes up Egypt was a complex of various discrete--and not necessarily united--local social-complexes.
quote:Originally posted by Djehootie:
This has been part of the long-held theory built around the Narmer Palette that came to attention for as long as I've known about the palette, barring the speculations of a visible minority which speaks of a scenery of an 'Egyptian-Libyan' conflict on the palette.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Again. Technically speaking there was no 'Egypt' as most of us know it. There were two regions-- the Nile Delta (Lower Egypt) and the Nile Valley (Upper Egypt).
Hence, "Egyptian-Libyan" in those quotation marks. Because I understand that they are contemporary applications.
what is the evidence for applying the word "Libyan" in any sense? The delta for example is not even on the West side of Egypt that borders Libya?
Djehootie teaches:
quote:Originally posted by Djehutie: the predynastic Delta people were of Libyan origin
do you agree?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes geographically the Delta is part of the Valley but in terms of culture or even politically they obviously were not.
The Delta region is not at all a part of the Nile Valley. It is a part of the Nile river, not the Valley, and the two different componants were correctly distinguished in TP's article:
quote:The Nile Delta is one of the oldest intensely cultivated areas on earth. It is very heavily populated, with population densities up to 1600 inhabitants per square kilometer. Deserts surround the low-lying, fertile floodplains. Only 2,5% of Egypt's land area, the Nile Delta and the Nile Valley, is suitable for intensive agriculture.
The Delta region is not situated in a Valley. Egyptian geography 101.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: How can such a misconception underline my post which states Upper Egyptians are descended from Nubians?!
Your application of "Upper Egyptians" and "Nubians" as two different entities, that's how. "Upper Egyptians" and "Nubians" need not be mutually exclusive entities. There are "Nubians" who are "Upper Egyptians" and vice versa.
quote:
quote:Again, your invocation of "two different countries" is suggestive of two rivaling polities, especially in light of the scenery on the "Narmer Palette", which is the subject of this thread. And yes, that would be akin to "two nation-states". I wouldn't describe the Delta region as a separate "country" from the Upper Nile Valley areas, because predynastic territory of what now makes up Egypt was a complex of various discrete--and not necessarily united--local social-complexes.
And again you seem to mistake my use of country for nation or nation-state. By 'country' I simply mean an inhabited region. I made no mention of polity whether centralized or not.
It's clear from this feedback that you are not listening to what you are replying. Carefully go over what I said [I highlighted some bits to aid you in understanding better].
quote:
quote:Hence, "Egyptian-Libyan" in those quotation marks. Because I understand that they are contemporary applications.
Of course. Idiotic minds like lyinass fail to comprehend this. Egypt or Kmt as it were called came to be once the Delta was united with the valley under a centralized polity or authority.
I was simply clarifying your puzzlement by my use of the terms "Egyptian-Libyan". I put those words in quotations, because they are NOT constructs of antiquity, but of contemporary provenance. However, within academic circles and elsewhere, contemporary words have been used to describe ancients. Take for example, those who advocate "Libyans" in the "Narmer Palette" scenery; obviously they are not referring to "Libyans" as we know them in the modern sense, but as an allusion to people who lived in the same territory that the contemporary nation of Libya lies. The same thing with a term like "Ancient Egyptians".
quote: Yes geographically the Delta is part of the Valley but in terms of culture or even politically they obviously were not.
Your comment contains a contradiction. If the Delta area is part of the Nile Valley, which it is, then its respective culture(s) and polity(s) should be a part of the Nile Valley.
No one in their right mind, who knows anything about it, would say that the Delta was not part of the "Nile Valley civilization". Perhaps you meant to say that cultures in the Delta area were different from those in the Upper Egyptian area during the predynastic period, as I suspect.
quote:Well according to the Upper Egyptians the Delta people were known as 'People of the Marsh', a label still used during dynastic times.
That seems to be a reference to people after the type of land they occupy; it does not specifically refer to a "culture". You spoke of "two" different "cultures" in the predynastic period. I'm curious to what you meant by this, especially given the fact that you acknowledged the existence of "chiefdoms" in northern areas of the Nile Valley.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: what if someone were to suggest that Kushites are exclusive of Egyptians?
They were, since Kushites were the locals of Kush, which was an actual polity in its own right. There was no nation called "Nubia" in antiquity.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Again. Technically speaking there was no 'Egypt' as most of us know it. There were two regions-- the Nile Delta (Lower Egypt) and the Nile Valley (Upper Egypt).
Hence, "Egyptian-Libyan" in those quotation marks. Because I understand that they are contemporary applications.
The delta for example is not even on the West side of Egypt that borders Libya?
That highlighted bit you are crediting me with are not my words. You are actually quoting Djehuti but crediting me with his words. You need to take care when quoting, and make sure you are linking it to the right person.
quote: what is the evidence for applying the word "Libyan" in any sense?
Why did you use the word "Libyans" in this discussion. In what context were you applying the term?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
the predynastic Delta people were of Libyan origin
do you agree?
I cannot confirm or deny the merit of the above-mentioned. If you recall, I was waiting for the supportive material that was the basis for this determination.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
What evidence are you basing it on, that the Delta is a part of the Nile Valley?
To put it simply, it is part of the Nile River system. It is only called the "Delta" because the River divides and channels off into different directions, not because there is something more extraordinary about it than what is coming from upstream.
Here's an understanding of what the Nile Valley is, if it helps:
Definition of Nile Valley
The Nile Valley is a region of northern Egypt where the Nile River snakes through the desert (north of Aswan) and then fans out toward the Mediterranean Sea, creating a vast, fertile region. Most of the population of Egypt — and all of its cities — is located within this area. Silt deposits from the river's annual flooding make the surrounding land exceptionally fertile. This, plus the predictability of the flood cycle, led to large concentrations of people utilizing advanced irrigation techniques to create a stable, centralized society. Artifacts indicating commerce have been dated as far back as 20,000 BC. This region was the site of the world's first great civilization, and Egypt's Old Kingdom (2686 BC to 2181 BC) flourished in this region. - courtesy cramster.com
Conversely, what evidence drives you into concluding that the Delta is NOT a part of the Nile Valley?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What evidence are you basing it on, that the Delta is a part of the Nile Valley?
To put it simply, it is part of the Nile River system. It is only called the "Delta" because the River divides and channels off into different directions, not because there is something more extraordinary about it than what is coming from upstream.
But the word 'Nile Valley', denotes the valley, i.e., the depression in the high level desert plateau, where most of the Egyptians lived, not the river itself. The Delta, in this instance, refers to a region as well, not it's distributaries.
quote:The Nile Valley is a region of northern Egypt where the Nile River snakes through the desert (north of Aswan) and then fans out toward the Mediterranean Sea, creating a vast, fertile region. Most of the population of Egypt — and all of its cities — is located within this area. Silt deposits from the river's annual flooding make the surrounding land exceptionally fertile. This, plus the predictability of the flood cycle, led to large concentrations of people utilizing advanced irrigation techniques to create a stable, centralized society. Artifacts indicating commerce have been dated as far back as 20,000 BC. This region was the site of the world's first great civilization, and Egypt's Old Kingdom (2686 BC to 2181 BC) flourished in this region. - courtesy cramster.com
I find it rather peculiar that this source limits the Nile Valley to Northern Egypt and that it seems to suggest that there were other regions outside of the Nile Valley, where post Old Kingdom Egyptians resided. That aside, how exactly does your quote define the word, or even help you with your assertion that the Nile Valley subsumes the Delta?
quote:Conversely, what evidence drives you into concluding that the Delta is NOT a part of the Nile Valley?
Simple, just sticking to the definition of the word 'Valley', and of course, picking up on how the term 'the Nile Valley' is used in the literature. One does not swim in a Valley, nor does one fish, or bathe in it, unless it contains a water source. Even in that case, one would do those activities with the aforementioned water source, not the said Valley. One thing your source did manage to get right, is that the Nile Valley is a region, not a river.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
But the word 'Nile Valley', denotes the valley, i.e., the depression in the high level desert plateau, where most of the Egyptians lived, not the river itself. The Delta, in this instance, refers to a region as well, not it's distributaries.
My bad for overestimating that you at least had the capacity to understand that I gratuitously assumed it would be useful to clue you in as to why the Delta region is simply called that. But hey, one can only try and hope for the best.
PS, for others: And why bother with the quick reminder that the Delta is part of the Nile River system? Well, because the very same water source that created "depressions" in the higher lands of the Nile regions would have been responsible for shaping the adjacent land forms of the delta region.
quote:I find it rather peculiar that this source limits the Nile Valley to Northern Egypt
If you consider *north of Aswan* as "northern Egypt", then the piece's idea of said northern region becomes less puzzling.
quote: and that it seems to suggest that there were other regions outside of the Nile Valley, where post Old Kingdom Egyptians resided.
Cite where!
quote: That aside, how exactly does your quote define the word, or even help you with your assertion that the Nile Valley subsumes the Delta?
The citation is pretty self-explanatory [I even highlighted it to aid those who don't get the obvious, like you] in its definition. If you are having troubles with it, you might want to consider that the problem lies with you, and hence, seek the necessary remedy.
quote:
quote:Conversely, what evidence drives you into concluding that the Delta is NOT a part of the Nile Valley?
Simple, just sticking to the definition of the word 'Valley', and of course, picking up on how the term 'the Nile Valley' is used in the literature.
And pray tell, how do you "stick to the definition of the word" as it relates to the Nile regions?
How do you pick up on "how the term 'the Nile Valley' is used in this piece of literature"?...
The *term delta*[see below lines] was used about two and a half millennia ago by Greek, Herodotus for the triangular seaward part of the Nile. This lower *part of the Nile valley* resembled the *Greek letter, delta*. Deltas may also form where a river falls in a lake but most deltas develop on the mouth of such large rivers, which fall into the sea. - courtesy preservearticles.com
And do you want take a jab at guessing why it is "triangular" here? Slight hint: the region, or the river's channeling structure?
quote: One does not swim in a Valley, nor does one fish, or bathe in it, unless it contains a water source. Even in that case, one would do those activities with the aforementioned water source, not the said Valley.
And you figured that on your own?
quote: One thing your source did manage to get right, is that the Nile Valley is a region, not a river.
I'm glad that you at least got that part without spoon-feeding. Pat yourself on the back.
Now try using this approach to answering the question you avoided:
Conversely, what evidence drives you into concluding that the Delta is NOT a part of the Nile Valley?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:My bad for overestimating that you at least had the capacity to understand that I gratuitously assumed it would be useful to clue you in as to why the Delta region is simply called that.
Your talk about rivers and water has no place in a discussion that is about regions. It’s not unreasonable to interpret such irrelevant discourse, as you being unable to distinguish between Nile Valley and Nile river.
quote:PS, for others: And why bother with the quick reminder that the Delta is part of the Nile River system? Well, because the very same water source that created "depressions" in the higher lands of the Nile regions would have been responsible for shaping the adjacent land forms of the delta region.
You’re just assuming your way out of this. Like a child you think that, because the Nile created a depression here, it must mean it stumbled on similar obstacles everywhere, during its formative phases. Your reasoning is especially off, considering that it is well known that the Delta region is coastal, and that, it is the lowest point relative to territory upriver. Hence, it should be expected that land nearer to the Delta is closer to sea level, and wouldn’t be as elevated as the desert plateau at lower latitudes.
Like many other regions in Egypt (e.g., the oases), the delta region is not a part of the desert plateau, and so, there might not have been a need for the early Nile to cut through high level desert. Undoubtedly, the Nile shaped the Delta region, if it didn’t it wouldn’t have permanent pathways to follow, would it? That, however, has nothing to do with Valleys in and of itself. Try again.
quote:If you consider *north of Aswan* as "northern Egypt", then the piece's idea of said northern region becomes less puzzling.
You’re not reading what I’m saying. I didn’t necessarily have issues with their equally odd idea about what constitutes Northern Egypt, but with their delimitation of the Nile Valley, as arbitrarily starting north of some random locality in Egypt, and thus, making it (the Nile Valley) a strictly Egyptian phenomena, when it isn’t.
quote:Cite where!
Well, for some reason, they take the effort to arbitrarily point out that the Old Kingdom flourished in '’this region’’, as if other time periods that were particularly prosperous, didn’t transpire in that region. It's like saying 'the phase called 'classical Kerma' flourished in Kerma'. You don't think there is something silly about that?
quote:The citation is pretty self-explanatory [I even highlighted it to aid those who don't get the obvious, like you] in its definition. If you are having troubles with it, you might want to consider that the problem lies with you, and hence, seek the necessary remedy.
All you did was posting a source that phucks up ever worse than you did. I’m sure I can find some source that argues that Elvis is still alive, if I look hard enough. I didn’t ask you to post some guys definition of what the Nile Valley comprises. No need to show me people who are in the same boat as you, because I already know some people phuck up in making the correct Nile Valley/Delta distinctions; after all, you preceded him. If you think that some guys definition is evidence, you must be needing the remedy you’re speaking of. Where the evidence I requested?
quote:The *term delta*[see below lines] was used about two and a half millennia ago by Greek, Herodotus for the triangular seaward part of the Nile. This lower *part of the Nile valley* resembled the *Greek letter, delta*. Deltas may also form where a river falls in a lake but most deltas develop on the mouth of such large rivers, which fall into the sea. - courtesy preservearticles.com And do you want take a jab at guessing why it is "triangular" here? Slight hint: the region, or the river's channeling structure?
Now I’m really beginning to think you don’t know what a Valley is. First you talk about rivers, and now you’re talking about triangles. I’m supposing your ‘quiz’ leads to that the Delta is triangular, because it’s shaped by two diverging elevated areas?
I really hope, for your sake, that that wasn’t where you was going with it.
See my previous reaction above. I’m not asking you for some guys rationalization. Most people, outside of the ones who are phucking up and really do believe the two aren't separated, just call the whole region ‘Nile Valley’ out of convenience, anyway. That doesn’t mean that they’ll actually consent when specifically asked if the Delta lies in a Valley.
I asked you to give me evidence, or do you not know what evidence is? Why do you keep coming up with this irrelevant chatter? Do you not know how to properly demonstrate whether the surrounding region of a locality is elevated or not?
quote:Conversely, what evidence drives you into concluding that the Delta is NOT a part of the Nile Valley?
I posted, in reaction to Djehuty, what that is. Recap: the Delta is not situated in a Valley; it, and surrounding Territory, is mostly situated at an absolute low point, relative to the lower latitude, non-Nile/non-coastal territories. Hence, therein lies the answer to your question, what I’m basing it on, that the Delta isn’t a part of the Nile Valley.
If shabby education is the cause behind your inability properly back up your claims, or your inability to verify whether a given region is or isn’t situated in between two elevated areas, that is your shortcoming, not mine. Don't try to compensate for you shortcomings, by lazily relying on silly definitions of people who are as illiterate of Egyptian geography as you are.
All you're doing is showing you're not alone, but I already know that.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Similar hairstyles of dead/fleeing enemies on Narmer Palette obverse bottom, a Tjehenu from Sahure, and a Tjemehu from Ramesses II makes for possibility of at least a "Libyan" cultural attribute if not "Libyans" themselves in pre- unification lower/delta Egypt, a.k.a. Ta Mehh or Ta Biti (land designations not implying a kingdom nor polity above assorted chiefdoms).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
http://www.temehu.com/Temehu.htm According to Herodotus Libya began west of the Nile. The Delta was called Tameh'et, one interpretation of which is 'the lotus land', just as pictured by its hieroglyph of three lotus flowers rising from a circle (the sign for 'city'). In connection with Meh', a mention must be made of the Seven Wise Ones of the goddess Meh'-urt, who, in the beginning of time, came from water at the feet of Nu or Nun, and who, in very early times, resided over the “weighing of words” in the Hall of Meh'-urt and thus rightly identified with Libyan Maat and Neith. This simple fact was known to many scholars and Egyptologists, like Sir Alan Gardiner who has noted that the name of the Libyan tribe Temeh'w means “Lower Egypt” as well as the “Delta”, whence mh's “the crown of Lower Egypt”. The ancient Egyptian Timhy (Tymhy) Stone of Wawat, found in one of the Egyptian lists of royal gifts, may indicate that the stones were of a particular type purveyed to the Egyptian by the Temehu. G. W. Murray (The Road to Chephren's Quarries) relates that the Temehu Libyans were employed in the labour gangs at the quarries; while other sources affirmed that the Temehu were famous for being skilled stone workers and that the monuments built of polygonal masonry in Cyrenaica were the work of the Temehu people whom often referred to as “the Westerners” ('those who dwell west of the Nile'). The name was also mentioned as Henet-Temehu , the princess daughter of Thenet-Hep , the wife of Ahmose I, which further illustrates the Libyan element in the Egyptian dynasties the name " Tehenu " itself, found on King Scorpion's statue (ca. 3300 BC), from which respected Egyptologists convincingly deduced that the struggle between the ancient Libyans and the Egyptians goes back to pre-dynastic times, as pointed out by both Breasted (1906) and Bates (1914), and also to the beginning of the Northern Kingdom of the Delta when the invading pharaohs were forcibly trying to unify the two kingdoms: the northern Libyan Lower Egypt and the southern Nubian Upper Egypt. This means that if the wars of the Tehenu-Temehu and the Egyptians were pre-dynastic, then the existence of the Tehenu and the Temehu people in Egypt surely goes even farther back in time.
This conclusion is also supported, in addition to the above Egyptian genealogy which classifies all Libyans as Temehu or Temehw (e.g., modern Temaheq or Tuareg), by the fact that several scholars generally agree that the Egyptians always referred to the Tehenu and the Temehu with titles indicating their nativity to the region and not as foreigners; and by the fact that the Egyptians were indeed very careful not adopt any foreign gods and as such their adoption of the Libyan Neith, Amon, Bast, Sekhmet, Set and many others is a strong indicator that they did not consider the Libyans as " foreigners". The established Libyan royal line of kings and queens in the Delta during and after the invasions of Menes, and the disputed royal lines of the Palermo Stone, are also a good example of this. Of course, there is one thing almost everyone fails to mention, and that is there is hardly any serious studies exploring Libyan history and as such Libyan history remains to be written. If the amount of work and volumes produced in relation to Egypt or Greece were also produced in relation to Libya, a totally new world would emerge from beneath the Libyan desert.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
So its my understanding that the above image (Libyan) is from Ramses ll right!!! I thought Libyans during this time frame wore side locks. Does anyone here have images of Libyans during the old kingdom period. Lots of infomatiom here also. Thanks
Posts: 48 | From: US | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
Another Europhilic Berber site - Peruse at your own risk. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ethiop:
So its my understanding that the above image (Libyan) is from Ramses ll right!!! I thought Libyans during this time frame wore side locks. Does anyone here have images of Libyans during the old kingdom period. Lots of infomatiom here also. Thanks
This is a "Libyan" from the causeway of the mortuary complex of 5th Dynasty King Sahure provided by Sahel (Siptah). It's a color photo of the head and upper torso similar to the first figure in this etching below courtesy of Ibrahim Akhyat.
BTW the map Lioness posted is from Bates' Eastern Libyans. It and the original black and white one has been posted here many times before.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Within ancient Libyans there were different tribes. I am not certain about which type represents what tribe (or if anybody knows)
However below we see two types,
1) the two first images are Libyans with the two crossing bands across the bare chest. They have long hair and no sidelock. They are sometimes depicted with reddish brown brick-like skin tones
2) below are Libyans with the distinctive side lock (some Egyptians also wore a wider varient of the side lock) These Libyans have a long gown type grament and do not have the two crossing bands acoss a bare chest as in type 1. The also tend to be depicted with lighter skin sometimes yellowish or tawny. Two feathers are often worn at the top of the head. In the tomb of Ramesess III these are left out in order to to display text
Libyans type 2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler (detail from larger version)
Indeed. Even the areas surrounding the lower parts of the Delta, that are somewhat elevated, are no more elevated than parts in Nile Valley upriver. The desert plateau that shapes the Valley, stops around Giza, on both sides of the depression.
This is what it looks like when all the height variations inside the valley are subsumed under a single benchmark (green):
The somewhat elevated areas around the lower parts of the Delta disappear, indicating that they're no more elevated than what is already in the Valley.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
My question here is inregards to the 4 prisoners. Theres one figure with a falcon sitting on top his head, certainly look like foreign race. The 2 at the bottom look foreign also. Who are these like seriuosly. My question is genuine. I am not here to make enemies. If this question is in another topic please direct me. I just want to here some of you guys explaination who in the hell are these people. Thank you
Let's look at the original question again. Here's a comparison, the Narmer enemies compared to Libyans or Asiatics. Narmer enemies followed by two Asiatics then two Libyans
NARMER ENEMIES
ASIATIC
ASIATIC
LIBYAN
LIBYAN
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patty:
The most famous artifact of the Unification period is NARMER Palette which evidences the characters of the warrior god-king. Victorious over Delta peoles he wears the Red Crown of Lower Egypt; many discussions have been made about two main arguments concerning Narmer Palette's actual meaning: a sort of chronicle of Egypt Unification, or of a mere retaliation and rebels punishment; the symbolic representation of the king power; the origin of the defeated enemies: Libyans, western Delta inhabitants, eastern Delta rebels, Sinai bedawins, Asiatics.
Narmer macehead seems to depict a post bellic event; no traces of battle in course but the prisoners and the booty of war are shown (cattle in an enclosure) and enumerated.
REFERENCES
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix, 1992. Préhistoire de l’Égypte. Des premiers hommes aux premiers pharaons, Paris : Armand Colin Éditeur.
As we can see scholars are not sure what the Narmer palette represents or who the enemies are. People here don't wnat it to be Asiatics because the speculation about the palette tends toward being interpreted as unification. Others wouldn't worry about it becasue they would argue the Asiatics of the time were black so it's o.k. However it is possible it is simply representation of Narmer dominating a foregn enemy. Another possibility is that it is both, that the main theme of the palette is unifictation of Lower and Upper Egypt and within that is a second separate theme of Narmer dominating a foreign enemy. Djehootie suggests that the King may be grabbing another Egyptian, a Delta Egyptian, whom he believes were of Libyan descent. He has yet to build a strong case for that and is waiting for alTak's marching orders. I'm just a reporter
also note some variation. There is the depiction of sidelocked Libyans both tawny or reddish. And the Libyan two pictures above with bands crossing his chest forming an "X" does not have the sidelock that dangles over the ear but he does appear to have a longer piece of hair, like a sidelock pulled behind the ear. Perhaps this was a section of hair that was grown longer in order to make a braided sidelock on other occasions. The braided sidelock seems to appear when they are wearing the long gown-like garment
The overall military symbolism on the palette is clear. Using different types of imagery, the king is shown again and again as victorious over his enemies. He is shown striking down a kneeling enemy, whilst stepping on the bodies of some other foes on the palette's back. On the front of the palette, he is represented as a human overlooking the decapitated corpses of his foes or as a bull vigorously trampling an enemy and breaking down the walls of a city or a fortress.
The fact that the king is represented on one side wearing the crown of Upper Egypt, the region from whence he came, and on the other side the crown of Lower Egypt is very often seen as proof that the Upper-Egyptian Narmer was the one who successfully conquered Lower Egypt or part thereof.
The association of the Red Crown with Lower Egypt can not be doubted for later periods of the Ancient Egyptian history, but this association may not have been made during or before the Early Dynastic Period. Indeed, a pottery fragment dated several generations before Narmer and found in Upper Egypt already bears the representation of the Red Crown. It is thus possible that the Red Crown indicated a different aspect of royalty than the White Crown and did not, at that time, have any geographical meaning at all. That Narmer is represented wearing the Red Crown would, in this case, not prove that he conquered or ruled the whole of Lower Egypt.
But even despite the doubt concerning the meaning of the representation of the Red Crown, it still is clear that the decoration on the palette refers to an important military campaign waged by Narmer against a marshy area. Three names of cities or fortresses that were overthrown during this campaign are mentioned and even though we do not know which places these names refer to, they were part of the conquered marsh lands. The fact that their names and the name of a fallen enemy are mentioned on the palette points to the great importance Narmer attached to this conquest.
The palette also refers to the foundation of a region indicated by the signs ship-harpoon-falcon, a group of signs that at least in later times would be used to denote the 7th Lower Egyptian province located in the eastern Nile Delta. If this group of signs indeed can be interpreted as the founding of a province in the eastern Nile Delta then the Narmer Palette can still be viewed as a historical document referring to the conquest of the eastern part of Lower Egypt.
quote: Originally posted by the l'ass:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
"The interpretation of the Narmer Palette seems clear: Narmer is represented wearing both Egyptian crowns; he conquers lands and overthrows the enemy. He is inspecting the victims of his war. The Narmer Palette deals with a war, but also dramatically indicates one of the most important events in the history of Ancient Egypt : the unification of the two lands, the first attestation of this event."
REFERENCES
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix, 1992. Préhistoire de l’Égypte. Des premiers hommes aux premiers pharaons, Paris : Armand Colin Éditeur.
It is not clear who the enemies are on the palette and if the person being grabbed by Narmer is an Egyptian or foreigner.
l'ass
REpost!lol
Ancient Egypt: a very short introduction by Ian Shaw
quote: Günter Dreyer suggests that one scene on the palette, of Narmer in the White Crown of Upper Egypt smiting a bearded enemy, is the same as one on an inscribed ivory label from Cemetery B at Abydos (see below). Three scenes on this label possibly make up a “year name” from Narmer’s reign, during which the king won a victory over the Libyans.
Furthermore,
An alternative interpretation for this symbol that has sometimes been forwarded, would be that each papyrus plant represents the number 1000 and that the falcon-king subdued 6000 enemies.
The papyrus plant was indeed used in later hieroglyphic writing to write the number 1000, but it was drawn in a somewhat different manner than the papyrus plants on the palette. Furthermore, it is not so certain that the signs used at the very beginning of hieroglyphic writing, have the same phonetic or even ideographic meaning. The alternative interpretation seems a bit too far-fetched.
Narmer strikes down a foe. Many Egyptologists have been tempted to interpret this scene as the conquest of Lower Egypt by Narmer.
Most of the back side of the palette is taken up by a finely carved and highly detailed raised relief showing a king, undoubtedly Narmer, ready to strike down a foe whom he grabs by the hair. This pose would become typical in Ancient Egyptian art. He wears a short skirt, an animal's tail and the crown that at least in later times was associated with Upper Egypt: the White Crown.
Behind him an apparently bald person holds the king's sandals in his left hand and a basket in his right. The signs written behind this man's head may denote his title, but their exact reading and meaning are unsure. The fact that the king is represented as barefooted and followed by a sandal-bearer perhaps suggests a ritual nature for the scene depicted on the palette.
Two dead enemies, symbolising conquered towns, are represented underneath Narmer's feet.
Narmer inspects a heap of beheaded corpses, likely to represent slain enemies after the battle.
quote:
The taming of wild animals has often been viewed as a metaphor for the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt.
You’re just assuming your way out of this. Like a child you think that, because the Nile created a depression here, it must mean it stumbled on similar obstacles everywhere, during its formative phases.
Obviously, your emotional kiddie-style name-calling talk, safely done behind a computer screen doesn't require much brain exercise. Mind-reading however, will require some level of brain cell activity. Since impelling you to properly read is totally out of the question, let's test this self-convinced mind-reading "powers" of your's: tell me what these "similar obstacles everywhere, during its formative phases" entail, and how that ties in the Nile Valley land formation.
quote:Like many other regions in Egypt (e.g., the oases), the delta region is not a part of the desert plateau
And ah, where does the Delta region supposedly start?
I've already tried several times with futility, to clue in your dumbass that the Delta region is called such, not because of its land formation, but because of the way the Nile channels out into different directions.
quote:Your reasoning is especially off, considering that it is well known that the Delta region is coastal, and that, it is the lowest point relative to territory upriver.
Another exercise: Where specifically is my reasoning "off", with respect to this google-triggered epiphany of your's?
quote:Undoubtedly, the Nile shaped the Delta region, if it didn’t it wouldn’t have permanent pathways to follow, would it? That, however, has nothing to do with Valleys in and of itself. Try again.
In what way has the Nile shaped the Delta region, while you are it?
quote: You’re not reading what I’m saying. I didn’t necessarily have issues with their equally odd idea about what constitutes Northern Egypt, but with their delimitation of the Nile Valley, as arbitrarily starting north of some random locality in Egypt, and thus, making it (the Nile Valley) a strictly Egyptian phenomena, when it isn’t.
The piece is obviously applying the often-used Eurocentric context of the Nile Valley, aka Egyptian Nile Valley. Your below-kindergarten level reading skills has allowed the reference to "north of Aswan" to elude you, and hence, this clueless talk of "some random locality in Egypt". Why that location you would ask, if you weren't letting your abysmal reading skills misguide you? It's from the Aswan region that the Nile takes off from man-made Lake of Nasser.
quote:Well, for some reason, they take the effort to arbitrarily point out that the Old Kingdom flourished in '’this region’’, as if other time periods that were particularly prosperous, didn’t transpire in that region. It's like saying 'the phase called 'classical Kerma' flourished in Kerma'. You don't think there is something silly about that?
Here's what I think is silly: your endless penchant for going off on a tangent and gratuitous overreaching for trifling stuff you read nowhere but in your own head. The piece does say "this region was the site of the world's first great civilization", doesn't it. How does the Nile Valley "civilization" ring to you? If you weren't a pitiful goofball, this non-issue would not be an issue.
quote: All you did was posting a source that phucks up ever worse than you did.
Not being able to understand a straightforward message in the piece and begging me to point it out to you is where the "fvck up" lies, if there is any to point out. Get my drift?
quote:I didn’t ask you to post some guys definition of what the Nile Valley comprises.
Yet, you see it fit to learn what supposedly constitutes the Nile Valley from, in your own words,..."picking up on how the term 'the Nile Valley' is used in the literature."
Just that other literature which turn your google-scrambled and emotionally-preferred feeble understanding upside down do not "do it" for you, for some reason, huh? BTW, that was a rhetorical question. You do know what "rhetorical" means? I hope so.
And no, I did not require your toothless "permission" to point to you that understanding outside your little bubble exists.
quote:Where the evidence I requested?
Evidence? Would you know one, if it hit you in the blockhead like a ton of bricks. How about your presentation of substance requested of you several rounds ago?
quote:Now I’m really beginning to think you don’t know what a Valley is. First you talk about rivers, and now you’re talking about triangles. I’m supposing your ‘quiz’ leads to that the Delta is triangular, because it’s shaped by two diverging elevated areas?
There is such a thing as saying "I don't know the answer". You could have saved yourself all the diversionary pussified-talk.
quote:See my previous reaction above. I’m not asking you for some guys rationalization. Most people, outside of the ones who are phucking up and really do believe the two aren't separated, just call the whole region ‘Nile Valley’ out of convenience, anyway. That doesn’t mean that they’ll actually consent when specifically asked if the Delta lies in a Valley.
Mr. Alzheimer's, lest you forget one reason for the quotation:
picking up on how the term 'the Nile Valley' is used in the literature. - swenet
As for what the citations mean by the term, it's right in print for anyone with a good pair of eyes; I'll let you psychologically battle with a guessing game as to whether they are "fucking up", doing it for "convenience" and/or "don't consent" to what the sources themselves just reported.
Want more guessing game work? Here's more such situations you can guess about:
By 5,000 BCE the Nile valley from modern-day Sudan right to its Delta on the Mediterranean seacoast had been home to various peoples for many thousands of years. As early as 16,000 BCE people living near the shores of lakes formed on the upper Nile, as well as on the upper river itself, lived in small villages, made fishing gear and boats, and produced some of the earliest pottery known. By the 4th millennium[13] BCE the valley had also attracted cattle keepers from the vast Saharan savannas to the west, and perhaps traders from other Neolithic communities to the northeast, as well. - Dr. Susan J. Herlin, Professor Emerita, Department of History, University of Louisville.
The Physical and Cultural Environment of the Nile in Ancient Times
The Lower Nile, from the First Cataract (modern-day Aswan) to the Mediterranean Sea, provides two different, but related environments. Moving north from the First Cataract, the Nile flows through a comparatively narrow valley. The lands along the banks are characterized by a series of natural basins (called hods), which have been altered by human engineering for the last 7,000 years. As one nears the Delta in the north, the floodplain widens and the basins become less distinct, until in the Delta itself the land is divided not into basins, but into islands and peninsulas formed by the alluvial deposits of soil over thousands of years. In very ancient times "Lower Egypt" began south of the Delta itself, including the broader floodplain from Memphis north. - Dr. Susan J. Herlin, Professor Emerita, Department of History, University of Louisville.
Piankhi Captures the Egyptian Throne In 751 B.C., a Kushite king named Piankhi overthrew the Libyan dynasty that had ruled Egypt for over 200 years. He united the entire Nile Valley from the delta in the north to Napata in the south. Piankhi and his descendants became Egypt’s 25th Dynasty. After his victory, Piankhi erected a monument in his homeland of Kush. On the monument, he had words inscribed that celebrated his victory. - First Age of Empires; chap. - The Egyptian and Nubian Empires, courtesy Mr. Lawrence Moskal, the Dean of Students-San Miguel High School, PowerShool Administrator.
^Message: The Delta is an integral part of the Nile Valley, not separate! Sure, sane people should be convinced that some nobody amateur hiding behind a computer, like you, knows better than these authors. You lay down the law, and darn it, who dares to set you straight.
quote:
quote:Conversely, what evidence drives you into concluding that the Delta is NOT a part of the Nile Valley?
I posted, in reaction to Djehuty, what that is. Recap: the Delta is not situated in a Valley; it, and surrounding Territory, is mostly situated at an absolute low point, relative to the lower latitude, non-Nile/non-coastal territories. Hence, therein lies the answer to your question, what I’m basing it on, that the Delta isn’t a part of the Nile Valley.
This revisionism is not evidence. That's you spouting off your opinion. And what's with this "non-Nile territories", and how did that get into the discourse of the Nile Valley?
quote: If shabby education is the cause behind your inability properly back up your claims, or your inability to verify whether a given region is or isn’t situated in between two elevated areas, that is your shortcoming, not mine.
Glad that you made this in the form a caveat, because it's absolutely delusional. "Shabby" reading is at the root of your problem; you are misplacing the fault.
quote:All you're doing is showing you're not alone, but I already know that.
Good for you; you know "something" after all.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Similar hairstyles of dead/fleeing enemies on Narmer Palette obverse bottom, a Tjehenu from Sahure, and a Tjemehu from Ramesses II makes for possibility of at least a "Libyan" cultural attribute if not "Libyans" themselves in pre- unification lower/delta Egypt, a.k.a. Ta Mehh or Ta Biti (land designations not implying a kingdom nor polity above assorted chiefdoms).
The figures above from the "Narmer Palette" imagery do sport hair that is reminiscent of that on the figures in the two images below it. Don't know if it has to do with difference of times wherein the sculptures were produced, but the side extensions running down from the back of the ear appear longer by contrast in the two images below. They reach the chest area in the latter two. At least one of the figures from the "Narmer Palette" seems to have a distinctive hair cut behind said hair extension, which is not seen on the figures of the other two images.
Perhaps the "Narmer Palette" imagery lacks the resolution to identify it, but where are those characteristic strapped gear that cross on the chest area? The same can be said of the gear on the private area; the figures in the other two images sport penis sheaths, but the same is not clear or visible about the "Narmer Palette" figures. What's clear, is that they are at least wearing some strap around the waist area.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Let's look at the original question again. Here's a comparison, the Narmer enemies compared to Libyans or Asiatics. Narmer enemies followed by two Asiatics then two Libyans
NARMER ENEMIES
ASIATIC
ASIATIC
LIBYAN
LIBYAN [QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll Patty:
The most famous artifact of the Unification period is NARMER Palette which evidences the characters of the warrior god-king. Victorious over Delta peoles he wears the Red Crown of Lower Egypt; many discussions have been made about two main arguments concerning Narmer Palette's actual meaning: a sort of chronicle of Egypt Unification, or of a mere retaliation and rebels punishment; the symbolic representation of the king power; the origin of the defeated enemies: Libyans, western Delta inhabitants, eastern Delta rebels, Sinai bedawins, Asiatics.
Apparently, even the Pharaoh's enemies appear to be distinct elements on the so-called Narmer Palette, not some homogeneous entity. The guy the Pharaoh is holding by the head, has a totally different hair style and garment from the two figures in the lower registry of the imagery. One can also argue that the head figure consolidated with the "papyrus" glyph has a larger facial hair than the figure held by the head, along with some differences in hair structure.
It's possible that the imagery speaks to both a unification event and the dominance over other foreign enemies outside of the Egyptian Nile Valley territory. It doesn't have to be an either/or narrative of one theme against another; it can be a combination of these themes.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Let's look at the original question again. Here's a comparison, the Narmer enemies compared to Libyans or Asiatics. Narmer enemies followed by two Asiatics then two Libyans
NARMER ENEMIES
ASIATIC
ASIATIC
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll Patty:
The most famous artifact of the Unification period is NARMER Palette which evidences the characters of the warrior god-king. Victorious over Delta peoles he wears the Red Crown of Lower Egypt; many discussions have been made about two main arguments concerning Narmer Palette's actual meaning: a sort of chronicle of Egypt Unification, or of a mere retaliation and rebels punishment; the symbolic representation of the king power; the origin of the defeated enemies: Libyans, western Delta inhabitants, eastern Delta rebels, Sinai bedawins, Asiatics.
Apparently, even the Pharaoh's enemies appear to be distinct elements on the so-called Narmer Palette, not some homogeneous entity. The guy the Pharaoh is holding by the head, has a totally different hair style and garment from the two figures in the lower registry of the imagery. One can also argue that the head figure consolidated with the "papyrus" glyph has a larger facial hair than the figure held by the head, along with some differences in hair structure.
It's possible that the imagery speaks to both a unification event and the dominance over other foreign enemies outside of the Egyptian Nile Valley territory. It doesn't have to be an either/or narrative of one theme against another; it can be a combination of these themes.
I agree. if you look at the top of this post there is one type of enemy that looks Asiatic (grabbed by Narmer and head with hook in nose) At the bottom of the palette is another diffeent looking type of enemy with a notably different hairstyle:
^^^ this appears to be a type of Libyan as here because the other type of Libyan has this unusual longer length coming down from behind the ear as you see in the type with crossing bands (although these figures appear to have been stripped naked)
LIBYAN
As you say the palette could represent unification and another theme in addition, of dominance over outside foreign enemies.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The overall military symbolism on the palette is clear. Using different types of imagery, the king is shown again and again as victorious over his enemies. He is shown striking down a kneeling enemy, whilst stepping on the bodies of some other foes on the palette's back. On the front of the palette, he is represented as a human overlooking the decapitated corpses of his foes or as a bull vigorously trampling an enemy and breaking down the walls of a city or a fortress.
The fact that the king is represented on one side wearing the crown of Upper Egypt, the region from whence he came, and on the other side the crown of Lower Egypt is very often seen as proof that the Upper-Egyptian Narmer was the one who successfully conquered Lower Egypt or part thereof.
The association of the Red Crown with Lower Egypt can not be doubted for later periods of the Ancient Egyptian history, but this association may not have been made during or before the Early Dynastic Period. Indeed, a pottery fragment dated several generations before Narmer and found in Upper Egypt already bears the representation of the Red Crown. It is thus possible that the Red Crown indicated a different aspect of royalty than the White Crown and did not, at that time, have any geographical meaning at all. That Narmer is represented wearing the Red Crown would, in this case, not prove that he conquered or ruled the whole of Lower Egypt.
But even despite the doubt concerning the meaning of the representation of the Red Crown, it still is clear that the decoration on the palette refers to an important military campaign waged by Narmer against a marshy area. Three names of cities or fortresses that were overthrown during this campaign are mentioned and even though we do not know which places these names refer to, they were part of the conquered marsh lands. The fact that their names and the name of a fallen enemy are mentioned on the palette points to the great importance Narmer attached to this conquest.
The palette also refers to the foundation of a region indicated by the signs ship-harpoon-falcon, a group of signs that at least in later times would be used to denote the 7th Lower Egyptian province located in the eastern Nile Delta. If this group of signs indeed can be interpreted as the founding of a province in the eastern Nile Delta then the Narmer Palette can still be viewed as a historical document referring to the conquest of the eastern part of Lower Egypt.
quote: Originally posted by the l'ass aka piece of sh*t:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
"The interpretation of the Narmer Palette seems clear: Narmer is represented wearing both Egyptian crowns; he conquers lands and overthrows the enemy. He is inspecting the victims of his war. The Narmer Palette deals with a war, but also dramatically indicates one of the most important events in the history of Ancient Egypt : the unification of the two lands, the first attestation of this event."
REFERENCES
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix, 1992. Préhistoire de l’Égypte. Des premiers hommes aux premiers pharaons, Paris : Armand Colin Éditeur.
It is not clear who the enemies are on the palette and if the person being grabbed by Narmer is an Egyptian or foreigner.
l'ass
REpost!lol
Ancient Egypt: a very short introduction by Ian Shaw
quote: Günter Dreyer suggests that one scene on the palette, of Narmer in the White Crown of Upper Egypt smiting a bearded enemy, is the same as one on an inscribed ivory label from Cemetery B at Abydos (see below). Three scenes on this label possibly make up a “year name” from Narmer’s reign, during which the king won a victory over the Libyans.
Furthermore,
An alternative interpretation for this symbol that has sometimes been forwarded, would be that each papyrus plant represents the number 1000 and that the falcon-king subdued 6000 enemies.
The papyrus plant was indeed used in later hieroglyphic writing to write the number 1000, but it was drawn in a somewhat different manner than the papyrus plants on the palette. Furthermore, it is not so certain that the signs used at the very beginning of hieroglyphic writing, have the same phonetic or even ideographic meaning. The alternative interpretation seems a bit too far-fetched.
Narmer strikes down a foe. Many Egyptologists have been tempted to interpret this scene as the conquest of Lower Egypt by Narmer.
Most of the back side of the palette is taken up by a finely carved and highly detailed raised relief showing a king, undoubtedly Narmer, ready to strike down a foe whom he grabs by the hair. This pose would become typical in Ancient Egyptian art. He wears a short skirt, an animal's tail and the crown that at least in later times was associated with Upper Egypt: the White Crown.
Behind him an apparently bald person holds the king's sandals in his left hand and a basket in his right. The signs written behind this man's head may denote his title, but their exact reading and meaning are unsure. The fact that the king is represented as barefooted and followed by a sandal-bearer perhaps suggests a ritual nature for the scene depicted on the palette.
Two dead enemies, symbolising conquered towns, are represented underneath Narmer's feet.
Narmer inspects a heap of beheaded corpses, likely to represent slain enemies after the battle.
quote:
The taming of wild animals has often been viewed as a metaphor for the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt.
posted
^^^ Troll Patty, you have no original thoughts you just parrot the same quotes over and over again like a retard. When you can articulate your own thoughts let us know. Explorer has made a relevant point, that the enemies in different sections of the palette look different. Now get lost we read your same copy & pastes 8 times already. Nobody knows for sure who the enemies are on the palette including your select scholars. Even Djhootie can make an argument in his own words for or against a point being made before posting book quotes that are related. For example if somebody were to claim that there are some Libyans on the Narmer palette and I asked you if they were foreign Libyans who went to war with Egypt or are they Delta Egyptians of Libyan ancestry as Djehootie believes you would not know how to answer. You would simply put up your same copy and pastes and would not be able to answer such a question - and some of these questions are nor even addressed in these books, for example the fact that the enemies on the Narmer palette look different in different sections of the palette.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Regarding Explorer & Lioness analyses:
If I'm not mistaken evidence for Narmer extends to the southern Levant. That could account for what some see as an Asiatic look of the one whose life breath is taken away by Horus/the King. But since he's part of the marsh glyph for Ta Mehh, he's somehow associated with the Delta. If Asiatic perhaps a foreign occupier of the east delta vs Libyan of the west delta. Or maybe an ally of the "Libyan."
Maybe the held by the hair captive about to be smitten is a type of far north Nile at delta or central delta African?
Makes sense that the delta would have mostly north Nile Africans and equal, lesser, or greater populous littoral Africans and a smattering of intrusive Asiatics (north east extension "Africans" to me).
The "Libyans" have fortified settlement glyphs in proximity, don't notice same for the "marsh man" (nomad).
@ Ish
Did you author the hand typed analysis of the palette sandwiched between the published refs of Shaw and Kinnear?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the l'ass aka piece of sh*t: ^^^ TP, you have no original thoughts you just parrot the same quotes over and over again like a retard. When you can articulate your own thoughts let us know. Explorer has made a relevant point, that the enemies in different sections of the palette look different. Now get lost we read your same copy & pastes 8 times already. Nobody knows for sure who the enemies are on the palette including your select scholars. Even Djhootie can make an argument in his own words for or against a point being made before posting book quotes that are related. For example if somebody were to claim that there are some Libyans on the Narmer palette and I asked you if they were foreign Libyans who went to war with Egypt or are they Delta Egyptians of Libyan ancestry as Djehootie believes you would not know how to answer. You would simply put up your same copy and pastes and would not be able to answer such a question - and some of these questions are nor even addressed in these books, for example the fact that the enemies on the Narmer palette look different in different sections of the palette.
I for sure have original thoughts, rather than you grasping in the dark for what, pseudo babbles? lol
If I produce my original thoughts you will ask, is there actual acedemic backup of this? looool
I repost as much as you repost, you spam and I reflect on you. With sources by valid scholarship, which you love to ignore. You have always another excuse. This is your problem. Actually looking for excuses is the only thing You're good at.
In science the rule of validity is #. I always backup mine. You just babble mindless nonsense, mostly based on poor research.
I deal with you the same as you do onto others. Deal with it!
Shall we study ancient and modern populations of the Libyan desert? loooool
I already have posted an abundance of scientific evidence, along (youlovetwoignore).
Ironically these too are the ancient (Neoletic) cattle herders from the Libyan desert. Could it be just coincidence? looooool
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Sticking a lit firecracker up a cat's ass Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Did you author the hand typed analysis of the palette sandwiched between the published refs of Shaw and Kinnear?
No, I didn't. I did put it in as an alternative to what some opposed.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
On what do you base this conclusion, what is the validation?
Your approach is very very amateuristic! I presented my case based on genetic, historical, geographical and pictorial evidence (as I do most of the time, in case you haven't noticed yet)!
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: blabalbalbala
As aspected, the 5 year old trapped in the body of a 50 year old, is at it again, berserking the forum like a wild sex deprived Mountain Gorilla.
This avalanche of booty chatter, acrobatics and digging for more material to disagree with, is intended only to obfuscate the fact that you got your ass handed to you on the Delta/Nile Valley matter.
Extending the discussion, with not a single word said in reaction to the conclusive evidence that settled the matter days ago, and thinking I will play your games = the epitome of being phucked in the head.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: I for sure have original thoughts, rather than you grasping in the dark for what, pseudo babbles? lol
If I produce my original thoughts you will ask, is there actual acedemic backup of this? looool
I repost as much as you repost, you spam and I reflect on you. With sources by valid scholarship, which you love to ignore. You have always another excuse. This is your problem. Actually looking for excuses is the only thing You're good at.
In science the rule of validity is #. I always backup mine. You just babble mindless nonsense, mostly based on poor research.
I deal with you the same as you do onto others. Deal with it!
Shall we study ancient and modern populations of the Libyan desert? loooool
I already have posted an abundance of scientific evidence, along (youlovetwoignore).
you still can't follow the topic. You think the topic of this thread is
"what modern people are descended from the Ancient Libyans please post photos?"
However this thread is about about specific details of certain figures on the Narmer palette. The thread was started by Ethiop who was asking specifically about four figures on one side of the palette. two figures appear to look one way and another two figures separated by a thick line appear to be another way. You have an inability to address the details of the discussion. You merely make large posts on general information about the palette not specific to these details being asked about. It's just you trying to show off your sources and you do it over and over agin repetatively. You are very insecure
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: I for sure have original thoughts, rather than you grasping in the dark for what, pseudo babbles? lol
If I produce my original thoughts you will ask, is there actual acedemic backup of this? looool
I repost as much as you repost, you spam and I reflect on you. With sources by valid scholarship, which you love to ignore. You have always another excuse. This is your problem. Actually looking for excuses is the only thing You're good at.
In science the rule of validity is #. I always backup mine. You just babble mindless nonsense, mostly based on poor research.
I deal with you the same as you do onto others. Deal with it!
Shall we study ancient and modern populations of the Libyan desert? loooool
I already have posted an abundance of scientific evidence, along (youlovetwoignore).
you still can't follow the topic. You think the topic of this thread is
"what modern people are descended from the Ancient Libyans please post photos?"
However this thread is about about specific details of certain figures on the Narmer palette. The thread was started by Ethiop who was asking specifically about four figures on one side of the palette. two figures appear to look one way and another two figures separated by a thick line appear to be another way. You have an inability to address the details of the discussion. You merely make large posts on general information about the palette not specific to these details being asked about. It's just you trying to show off your sources and you do it over and over agin repetatively. You are very insecure
lol this here above is hilarious!
Shake my head. Then why did you show pics that weren't relevant to the Narmer palette, in the first place?lol
What drugs are you using? Because everything I've put in thus far is relevant to this debate. Every halfbrainer understand this, except for the no brainer you are! With close to call guess work!lol
In order to understand who's is who on the Narmer palette who have to understand the timeline and who lived where at what time. It is really that simple. loooooool
As I said before, you are good at making excuses. And you dislike the outcome of my conclusions. Had they been the more Northern Arabic looking type (who entered the Levant recently), you would have been content with the outcome. Well it doesn't. looool
I foresee your snaky Eurocetric ways!
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
B|tch how stupid are you??!! AGAIN, I will repeat... How the f*ck can this be a "civil war" when Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt were 2 SEPARATE COUNTRIES in the first place?!! This was a war of conquest and unification! Even the most elementary school book texts say Egypt was the result of union between 2 lands-- Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt! Even throughout the rest of dynastic times, Kmt (Egypt) was referred to as the 2 lands!![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I give up with this dumb twit. Can someone else try explaining to worm that Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians WERE foreigners to each other during that time?? Perhaps you might have better luck. Or perhaps not. 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic