quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
During the 1500's-1800's a good portion of that region was under controll by Ottoman Turks. Local Turkish govenors intermarried or raped Nubian women in this region. Culturally these people are very much like the Sai'idi people above the first cataract. Their funerary ceremonies and birth ceremonies are very similar. Some differences is the Nubians spirtual pratices and beliefs of the Nile. Their language is Nilo-Saharan.

---

It would be naive not to take into account later developments like foreign intrusions into the region, but as you pointed out, that came about after the dynastic era. In the pre-dynastic era, the cultures would have been much more similar, with reference to the developments in A-Group Nubia, Qustul. Let's not forget the folks further north; northernmost Nubia. At any rate, this is where the Kemetian civilization has its roots, with the culture flowing from south to north, just like the Nile river.

Let's take a look at the following map, and see precisely where portions of Nubia lay.

Source: www.homestead.com

Notice the ancient Egypto-Nubian boundary, and then the modern Egyptian and Sudanese border on the same map

I am not sure many folks pay attention to the historic borders, when dealing with the "Nile Valley" civilization. The following is what the homestead website has to say:

"In ancient times the border of southern (or "Upper") Egypt was much further south than where it is today. Upper Egypt in ancient times extended well into what is now the country of Sudan (known in ancient times as Nubia or Kush). It was from Upper Egypt (Nubia or Kush) that the first pharaoh of Egypt Narmer (also known as Menes) went out to conquer and unify all of Egypt into one nation or kingdom."

Here is the homestead link, the source of the quote.

This quote is confusing, considering that it probably should have been said that the ancient border of Upper Egypt, was not as further south as it is today. I mean, this is what the above map shows!

Nile Valley civilisation is based upon the culture of indigenous Africans who concentrated into the Nile from the Western Sahara, the Southern Sudan, and the Horn of Africa. Thus, the oldest examples of mummification come from the southwestern sahara; the oldest example of pharaonic kingship come from TaSeti; the oldest examples of heiroglyphic writing from TaSeti and TaShemu (Upper Egypt) and are based on the rock art from the once wet sahara dating back to before the Nile Valley was populated.

The most meaningful basis of the political boundary of dynastic Kemet is the cataracts of the Nile, which make for a practical administrative boundary, and moreover reflects the practical reality of the greater fertility beneath the first cataract where the nile valley speads out and becomes more fertile. Kemet is where it is because that's where the best agricultural land is.

All of these facts are obscured by the current historical dialectic of Egyptology vs. Nubianology.

A system which is in some ways, the intellectual/historic discourse equivelant of apartheid. Nubia is the contrived Bantustan of Nile Valley history.

[Wst] Egyptology attempts to say to Africans: "You go play here, and don't cross the line."; a line of their own creation and serving their agenda, and not an African one.

Hopefully African scholars will ultimately reject this chimera, just as South Africans rejected apartheid's Bantustans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Egypt is a Greek word.
Nubia is an African word, but the concept of "Nubia" as a distinct geographical/ethnical region is originally Roman.

Nile Valley civilisation is based upon the culture of indigenous Africans who concentrated into the Nile from the Western Sahara, the Southern Sudan, and the Horn of Africa. Thus, the oldest examples of mummification come from the southwestern sahara; the oldest example of pharaonic kingship come from TaSeti; the oldest examples of heiroglyphic writing from TaSeti and TaShemu (Upper Egypt) and are based on the rock art from the once wet sahara dating back to before the Nile Valley was populated.

The most meaningful basis of the political boundary of dynastic Kemet is the cataracts of the Nile, which make for a practical administrative boundary, and moreover reflects the practical reality of the greater fertility beneath the first cataract where the nile valley speads out and becomes more fertile. Kemet is where it is because that's where the best agricultural land is.

All of these facts are obscured by the current historical dialectic of Egyptology vs. Nubianology...Hopefully African scholars will ultimately reject this chimera, just as South Africans rejected apartheid's Bantustans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lizabeth77:
I don't mean to sound dumb, but who are the Nubians and what did they do? I am really interested to know.

---

Know one who asks questions is dumb. And you have come to a good place to get answers to your questions, 'cause there are some knowledgeable folks at this forum.

Just use this forum's search feature and,
for example:

Search words: Nubia/Nubians/Imhotep/etc.
Search by User Name: (I suggest) Ausar/rasol/Supercar/
also try Kem-Au/keino

You can also restrict your search to the last 30 days if you want to...

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Nubia and Egypt have had changing borders over time. Lower Nubia was always more like a remote part of Egypt, just sparsely populated like the Sinai.

Upper Nubia is where the Nubians hostile to the Egyptians, the Kushites, came from. Eventually, the Egyptians triumphed over the Kushites and after a few centuries the cultural boundaries between Kushites and Egyptians became blurred. The Kushites eventually broke away from Egypt and went further south to found Meroe.

---

I am not sure what you are implying above, but I hope you are aware that the Nubians were the Kushites, not just Upper Nubians. And yes, part of lower Nubia was within what is now part of southern Egypt. I am not sure what "changing" borders you are referring to, in terms of Kemet and Nubia.

quote:

---

lizabeth77:
so the Nubians were Lower Egypt? Is that correct? Is that what the palette of Narmer represents? I know it represents the unification of lower and upper egypt, but where the lower egyptians Nubians?

---

Lower Egypt is the Northernmost portion of Egypt. Lower Nubia bordered Upper Egypt, and in fact when looking at "contemporary" political boundaries, a portion of "ancient" Lower Nubia lies within southern Egypt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Lower Egypt is the Northernmost portion of Egypt. Lower Nubia bordered Upper Egypt, and in fact when looking at "contemporary" political boundaries, a portion of "ancient" Lower Nubia lies within southern Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lizabeth77:
Originally posted by supercar:
Lower Egypt is the Northernmost portion of Egypt. Lower Nubia bordered Upper Egypt, and in fact when looking at "contemporary" political boundaries, a portion of "ancient" Lower Nubia lies within southern Egypt.

So what you are saying is that Narmers unification of lower and upper egypt has nothign to do with Nubia? Thats all I was asking.

---

Actually I was correcting your line of questioning, by providing the correct answer. You asked whether Lower Egyptians were Nubians!

As far as what you are asking above; of course that doesn't come close to anything I have said. But to answer the question you intended to ask, the answer is:
Of course, Nubia had something to do with the unification of Upper and lower Egypt, because Narmer came from lower Nubia (in Upper Egypt).

quote:

---

Originally posted by lizabeth77:
Oy!! I am really confused. I think that through the medium of the internet my question has been convoluded. I just wanted to know what Nubia was. I didn't get what i thought was clear answer. Then I thought that maybe Nubia was lower egypt. But I was wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
I am not sure what you are implying above, but I hope you are aware that the Nubians were the Kushites, not just Upper Nubians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
The Kushites originally were a specific group of Nubians who ruled upper Nubia. Eventually, when they ruled all of upper and lower Nubia the name "Kushite" was used to describe all people of Nubia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lizabeth77:
Oy!! I am really confused. I think that through the medium of the internet my question has been convoluded. I just wanted to know what Nubia was. I didn't get what i thought was clear answer. Then I thought that maybe Nubia was lower egypt. But I was wrong.

---

Liz,
Ancient Nubia is now called Sudan. Northern Egypt is lower Egypt. Upper Egypt and lower Nubia shares the same land. When thinking of upper and lower just think in the direction of the Nile river. Down river is lower. Up river is upper. Remember the Nile river flows from south to north.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lizabeth77:
Oy!! I am really confused. I think that through the medium of the internet my question has been convoluded. I just wanted to know what Nubia was. I didn't get what i thought was clear answer. Then I thought that maybe Nubia was lower egypt. But I was wrong.

---

Hi Liz,

You're asking a loaded question when you say "what is Nubia". That's why you're getting unclear answers. Since this forum is on Ancient Egypt, let's first deal with how they saw Nubia.

The word Nubia comes from the A.E. word Nub, which means gold. Therefore a Nubian is a gold miner. The word Nubian says nothing else about an individual.

The Romans confused the word Nubia as denoting a specific place, with a particular ethnic group, and we are stuck with this mistake even today. It's a headache when studying Egyptology today because of the ease in which someone is labeled Nubian, when the individial may have been an Egyptian, or a Kushite, or a Medjay, etc.

As far as where Nubia is, to the AE's it most likely represented a region in the north of the modern Sudan, which is where they mined their gold. Throughout most of the Pharonic period, this region was most likely part of Egypt. So Nubia would have simple been a district of Egypt. Well, at least part of what we now call Nubia.

Who occupied Nubia is a much tougher question to answer because it depends when and precisely where you're talking about. But you've got the ancestors of AE's living there, to the Kushites, and probably the Axum people.

You can start here for some basic info: http://www.nubianet.org/

But don't end your studies of "Nubia" here as the site is very basic and lacks some critical details.

Partially correct, kem-au. Please understand that the ancient Kemetians[Egyptians] never called the land of the first cataract Nubia but instead names like Wawat, Yam, Irjet, Setjau, Medijay,Irem,and other names. Lower Nubia was from the south of the first cataract to the second cataract,and Upper Nubia was from the third cataract to the fifth cataract.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Partially correct, kem-au. Please understand that the ancient Kemetians[Egyptians] never called the land of the first cataract Nubia but instead names like Wawat, Yam, Irjet, Setjau, Medijay,Irem,and other names. Lower Nubia was from the south of the first cataract to the second cataract,and Upper Nubia was from the third cataract to the fifth cataract.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
I agree with that. I think the problem is that part of what we call Nubia today, was actually a part of Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I agree however, at the height of the Kushite kings, Nubia was from central Sudan to upper Egypt. So it can also be said that upper Egypt was part of Nubia during certain periods...

---

quote:

---

We must be careful not to fall into the 'Nubian syndrome':
"Brainwash people into believing that Nubian means 'Black people' and that this is the only Black civilization in antiquity, so that if they think Black civilization, they'll think Nubian. Thus distinctly separate African civilizations such as Ta Sti; (e)Kush; Sheba(Meroe) are all lumped together as 'Nubian(i.e., Blacks).' And...if Ancient Egypt or Ancient Colchis or Pre-Semitic Canaan were not Nubian settlements, then they were not Black cultures. It is a sophisticated tact and, tragically, it works. Some "Egyptologist" even refer to the Kushite (nee Nubian) dynasties of Ancient Egypt as the 'reign of the Black pharaohs,' implying the nonsensical notion that the Egyptian pharaohs were not...you see what I
mean.

---

Kemetian Political Geography

quote:

---

Forget about the Greeks this, the Romans that. All of these terms, as I have pointed out before are African words. The word for 'gold' is nub; noub in Ancient Egyptian, Coptic, as well as the ethnic Nubian language itself. There are the Noba and Nuba peoples of the Sudan as well (not the same as ethnic Nubians/former Kemetian gold miners?). Greece and Rome hardly invented anything new, let alone the names of these ancient states and provinces...

---

Ethosh: frontier; African states outside of the jurisdiction of Kemet, which constantly changed throughout the course of Nile Valley Civilization ("Nothing is permanent but change.")

Ethoshi: frontier dwellers (those who dwell beyond the southern borders of Kemet)

Wawat: a province of northern Nubia (the gold mines), a part of the Kemetian state.

Wawat: foliage, hair, flame, radiance, rebel

Wawaiu - rebels; a tribe or people of wawat.

(also we have the Yam, Irjet, Setjau, Medijay, and Irem ethnic groups - none of which are ethnic Nubians)
...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
I agree with that. I think the problem is that part of what we call Nubia today, was actually a part of Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Neo*geo responds:
I agree however, at the height of the Kushite kings, Nubia was from central Sudan to upper Egypt. So it can also be said that upper Egypt was part of Nubia during certain periods...

---

This is precisely why I brought up this subject: confusion about political borders!
Kem-au is looking at Nubia from the modern political perspective. In other words, based on the modern political boundaries of Egypt, he concludes that lower Nubia was part of upper Egypt. Neo*geo's comment is equally erroneous. *Part* (not the whole) of what is now upper Egypt, *was* actually lower Nubia in the ancient era. Let's not forget that Nubia was considered its own nation, not withstanding its being part of the Nile Valley civilization. We have to look at these ancient nations from the perspective of the folks who lived that era. It was their generation, not ours. Of course, literally speaking, based on what we know about Egyptian territory, lower Nubia would be in Upper Egypt. In that respect, Kem-au's comment would have been correct. I too have made these errors in the past. But as petty as it sounds, minor twists in how you phrase words in the context of the subject matter at hand, can make a difference. People who often distinguish Nubians from Upper Egyptians racially, have always been looking at these nations from the perspective of modern political boundaries. Thus now, the Nubian descendants in Upper Egypt, are lumped with the rest of Egypt and separated from Nubian descendants of the remaining lower Nubian portion, extending to Upper Nubia, all of which is now part the modern Sudanese nation. The same mentality has put Nubia into the vassal nation status (even though both nations have interchangeably influenced one another), and hence worthy of being "Black" civilization. This not withstanding that Kemetian kinship is rooted in the lower Nubian region, not to mention that the complex cultural development flowed from this region to the lower Nile region.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
This is precisely why I brought up this subject: confusion about political borders!
Kem-au is looking at Nubia from the modern political perspective. In other words, based on the modern political boundaries of Egypt, he concludes that lower Nubia was part of upper Egypt. Neo*geo's comment is equally erroneous. *Part* (not the whole) of what is [b]now upper Egypt, *was* actually lower Nubia in the ancient era. Let's not forget that Nubia was considered its own nation, not withstanding its being part of the Nile Valley civilization. We have to look at these ancient nations from the perspective of the folks who lived that era. It was their generation, not ours. Of course, literally speaking, based on what we know about Egyptian territory, lower Nubia would be in Upper Egypt. In that respect, Kem-au's comment would have been correct. I too have made these errors in the past. But as petty as it sounds, minor twists in how you phrase words in the context of the subject matter at hand, can make a difference. People who often distinguish Nubians from Upper Egyptians racially, have always been looking at these nations from the perspective of modern political boundaries. Thus now, the Nubian descendants in Upper Egypt, are lumped with the rest of Egypt and separated from Nubian descendants of the remaining lower Nubian portion, extending to Upper Nubia, all of which is now part the modern Sudanese nation. The same mentality has put Nubia into the vassal nation status (even though both nations have interchangeably influenced one another), and hence worthy of being "Black" civilization. This not withstanding that Kemetian kinship is rooted in the lower Nubian region, not to mention that the complex cultural development flowed from this region to the lower Nile region.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 November 2004).][/B]

---

Actually supercar, I'm not at all looking at Nubia from a modern political perspective. I'm actually suggesting we look at the southern borders of Egypt from the point of view that the Egyptians saw it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Actually supercar, I'm not at all looking at Nubia from a modern political perspective. I'm actually suggesting we look at the southern borders of Egypt from the point of view that the Egyptians saw it.

As far as Lower Nubia being part of Upper Egypt or vice versa, that's a debate I don't want a part of.

---

Your earlier statement was in reference to the political territory. And in fact, that is what this thread is all about. Addressing anything else, is wandering off the topic!

quote:

---

Kem-AU:
The southern border of Egypt shifted from time to time. I have no proof of this, but I'd assume Egypt had to fight with southern neighbors over those gold mines. That could have been a reason for the tension between the 17th Dynasty Egypt and Kush. But again, it's just speculation.[/b]

---

It's okay to speculate, as long as you forward it as such!

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Your earlier statement was in reference to the political territory. And in fact, that is what this thread is all about. Addressing anything else, is wandering off the topic!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
My earlier statement was simply to address Liz's question. I need to point out however that when I say when need stop using the word Nubia, I mean we need to stop using it as an ethnic or political term. Because as others have pointed out, the word is very useful from a purely Egyptian perspective.

---

You aren't looking at the same comment, that I was referring to. This is the comment I responded to:

quote:

---

Kem-au:
I agree with that. I think the problem is that part of what we call Nubia today, was actually a part of Egypt.

---

Kem-au, I agree that "Nubia" shouldn't looked at in terms of ethnicity. I think my opening statement makes that clear. But what about the political issue you just raised? I think it would be a mistake to say that certain parts of Nubia weren't treated as sovereign territory. The Kemetians may have controlled much of Nubia for quite sometime, but they didn't necessary control the whole region. In fact, the Nubian regions that there were under Kemetian control changed from time to time, depending on which specific time frame you are looking at. They often found it relatively difficult to penetrate deep into Upper Nubia, not to say that they didn't control portions of upper Nubia. In the 18th dynasty, Kemetian control of "Nubian" region extended to a portion of upper Nubia. But in the 25th dynasty, the Kushites controlled much of Nubia, including the lower Nubian region that seems to have been part of Kemet throughout the dynastic era. I guess one can also say that the Kushites at that point in time, were Kemetian Pharaohs, and in that sense, Nubia would have still been part of Kemet. While it is true that the Kemetians had often used different names for Nubia or parts of Nubia, in many cases, upper Nubia seemed to be more autonomous or independent from Kemet.

By now, we can see how complex the Kemetian-Nubian relationship is, with Kemetian-Nubian border changing throughtout the years. This is why those who simply single out "Nubia" as the "black" Nile valley civilization, while branding the extension of the same civilization "down" the Nile (within the rest of Kemet) as some far off civilization, aren't making any sense. As some of you have correctly stated, Kemet didn't see much of Nubia as another nation, but as districts or parts of Kemet. Therefore, advocates of two separate civilizations are missing the big picture.

quote:

---

I think it would be a mistake to say that certain parts of Nubia weren't treated as sovereign territory.

---

If there is no Nation called Nubia, and no people called Nubians (in antiquity) then how could it be sovereign territory? And how is defining it as being a part of "Kush" any more "soverign" than defining it as being a part of Kemet. It is just a fact that for much of history the geography that is Nubia was a part of Kemet.

Beginning in Roman times, the idea takes on a different meaning so today you have peoples such as the Nuba of Sudan, or the Beja of Egypt and Sudan. But the Beja aren't the Nuba, anymore than they are Sa3eadi. In ancient times their Mejay ancestors were at times allied with Kemet and fought against Kush.

Are the modern Nubians soveriegn now? The ones who live in Egypt? The ones who live in Sudan? How does that fact make them any more or less soverign?

I asked the question awhile ago: the Anu people 1st ruling class of Kemet/Egypt. What are they? Egyptian? Nubian? Both? Neither?

The more we discuss what is "Nubia" the more I'm convinced that the concept is just a mess.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

The more we discuss what is "Nubia" the more I'm convinced that the concept is just a mess.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 November 2004).]

---

It was intended to be such, and it's because people continue to disengage Kemetian history from its African realities. Consider the following news item where all one has to do is to change Puntland to Nubia and Somalia to Kemet...
"Puntland is a region in northeastern Somalia, centered around Garowe (Nugaal region), whose leaders in 1998 declared it to be an autonomous state. The current government apparently sees the move as an attempt to reconstitute Somalia as a federative republic."
Then there's Ethiopia and Eritrea, was Nigeria-Biafra, and so on...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
If there is no Nation called Nubia, and no people called Nubians (in antiquity) then how could it be sovereign territory?

---

I think the problem here is the constant usage of the word "Nubia". In the old Kingdom, the land they called Ta-Seti, was actually the southern nome of Kemet. But then at the same time, the land further south and adjacent to the Kemetian southern border was also referred to as Ta-Seti. Such terminology probably influenced the Europeans to resort to the use of single terminology for that region; right below Elephantine, from the 1st cataract extending to 6th cataract. This of course, notwithstanding that "Nubia" was derived from Kemetian terminology. The "Nubian" terminology doesn't really tell as much, in terms of the changing Kemetian southern border, as well as the changing Kemetian terminologies of that region. At the time Ta-Seti was being used to designate the "Nubian" region, Kemetians also used Wawat as a specific reference to Lower "Nubia". As I understand it, some of these names had something to do with the description of the folks who lived in the region(s) in question. Yet another general name applied to the Nubian region at this time, was Ta-Nehesy. Let's not forget some of the names Ausar pointed out earlier, in reference to different parts of "Nubia". But in terms of the sovereignity I was referring to earlier, this has to do with the developments like the powerful & independent kingdom of "Kush" in Upper "Nubia", which as I understand it, was at first based in Kerma, then to Napata, to be followed by Meroe. The Kingdom in question,i.e. Kush, was actually the terminology the Kemetians used to describe the Kingdom. Not sure exactly how the Kushites referred to themselves, but we at least know what the Kemetians called them. Confrontations with Kemet had influenced their relocations. Nonetheless, this particular region of Upper Nile-between the 2th and 4th cataracts, including the city of Kerma, as the capital-was autonomous, and the Kemetians appeared to have acknowledged the sovereignty of the Kush Kingdom. The same goes for the later Kingdom of Meroe. Kemetians weren't able to entirely control upper "Nubian" region. If they indeed did, I am open to seeing a convincing analysis of this.

quote:

---

rasol:
And how is defining it as being a part of "Kush" any more "soverign" than defining it as being a part of Kemet.

---

Actually what I was trying to get at earlier, was that the Kushites eventually ruled as Pharaohs in Kemet. Therefore, at that particular point in time, the Kushites would have looked at their rule in terms of Kemet, meaning that whatever authority they had further south, would have been considered part of Kemet.

quote:

---

rasol:
It is just a fact that for much of history the geography that is Nubia was a part of Kemet.

---

quote:

---

rasol:
Are the modern Nubians soveriegn now? The ones who live in Egypt? The ones who live in Sudan? How does that fact make them any more or less soverign?
I asked the question awhile ago: the Anu people 1st ruling class of Kemet/Egypt. What are they? Egyptian? Nubian? Both? Neither?

---

Interesting question. That is why history has to be looked at from the perspective of the folks who lived it, and situations looked at on a time frame basis, because things keep changing. That is one of the points I was trying to bring across in my opening comment.

quote:

---

rasol:
The more we discuss what is "Nubia" the more I'm convinced that the concept is just a mess.

---

I agree that there is a problem with the way that term "Nubia" is used. The complex relationship between what is called Kemet, and what is called "Nubia" by modern historians is only leads to confusion. But Kemet and "Nubia" were tied to one another in such a way, that it really doesn't make sense to separate them, on an ethnic basis or even civilization. That was another point I tried to bring out in my opening coment.

The artifacts speak: Ancient Qustul (Ta-Seti) - Egypt's Origin

The site was nearly two hundred miles deep in the heart of a country the
Egyptians had called Ta-Seti - "Land of the Bow." Here in this remote corner of
Africa, an elegant and cosmopolitan culture had flourished centuries before the
pyramids were built.

Discovery of a variety of artifacts led to the startling conclusions.

It had been found by archaeologist Keith C. Seele in 1964. Originally, Qustul
was judged to be one of the least promising areas. Seele spent most of his time
in Nubia excavating other areas. When he finally turned his attention to
Qustul, in his very last digging season in Nubia, Seele discovered a cemetery
of thirty-three tombs.

Twelve of the tombs were tremendous, each one large enough to have served a
predynastic Egyptian king.

Tombs of this size, wealth and date in Egypt would have been immediately
recognized as royal. Their extraordinarily varied contents would have been
taken as evidence of a complex culture exposed to wide outside connections. But
because the discovery was made in Nubia at a time and place when kingship was
thought impossible, further proof of royalty is necessary.

What was really surprising was the age of the tombs. The cemetery clearly dated
from the time of the so-called A-Group - a prehistoric people believed to have
dominated lower Nubia from about 3800 to 3100 B.C.

Of all the numerous items discovered, the most significant were found in an
A-Group grave site, called Cemetery L, which yielded artifacts that were
created six to seven generations (approximately 200 years) before the start of
the First Dynasty in Egypt, 3150 B.C.

All told, more than 1,000 complete and fragmentary painted pots, and over 100
stone vessels. The range of these and other fragments from the plundered
cemetery began to indicate a wealth and complexity that could only be called
royal.

In addition to huge quantities of native pottery, the tombs were filled with
bottles, flasks, bowls, and large storage jars from Egypt - many inscribed with
hieroglyphs. There were also vessels from Syria-Palestine of a type that had
never been found in Egypt and that may have indicated a direct trade link
between Nubia and Asia.

These findings included five major groups:
1 - items probably from Sudan
2 - items very similar to a culture previously know as C-Group, which was found
in Nubia and in Egypt up to the New Kingdom (2300 - 1500 B.C.)
3 - Egyptian pottery, some of which had early forms of hieroglyphic writing
4 - items from the Levant (Syria and Palestine area)
5 - badly damaged objects of Egyptian and Sudanese origin

It was in one of these graves - coded "L-24" by the excavators - that the
mysterious incense burner came to light.

An incense burner with crude figures and pictographs gouged deep into the clay.
The inscription showed three ships sailing in procession. The three ships were
sailing toward the royal palace. One of the ships carried a lion - perhaps a
diety. This piece had been made no later than 3300 B.C. At that early date,
there were not supposed to have been any such things as pharaohs or pharaohs'
palaces. Moreover, the piece had not even been found in Egypt. It had come from
Qustul, located just north of the Sudanese border. The censer, in short was
Nubian.

If Williams's restoration was correct this censer had been inscribed with
nothing less than the earliest known portrait of a pharaoh ever discovered.
Why, then, had it turned up in Nubia rather than Egypt? Such censers simply do
not appear in Egypt. Could the earliest pharaoh have actually been Nubian?

This was not Egyptian art. This censer had been found, not in Egypt, but nearly
200 miles deep in Nubia. Moreover, for the time the censer was made,
archaeologists had found no trace in Egypt of any other inscription showing
such a clear use of royal emblems such as the White Crown, the Horus falcon,
the serekh, and the rosette.

…when the incense burner was reexamined in the light of the obviously royal
stature of people buried in Cemetery L, the essential restoration of the
missing elements was immediately clear. In the first ship, a prisoner is
kneeling on a palanquin or litter held by a rope in the grasp of a guard with a
mace…the white crown of Upper Egypt clearly stands out above the ship. In
front of it is the tail of a falcon - another sign of kingship. The crown
indicates that the figure is a king, and the falcon should be seen as perched
on a serekh, together a characteristic representation in early dynastic Egypt.
In front of the falcon is a rosette, symbol of royalty before the First
Dynasty…

Its date provided by context, style and composition, the Qustul burner
furnishes the earliest definite representation of a king in the Nile Valley or
anywhere…Perhaps the most troublesome question was why nothing of this
kingdom had been known until now. Actually, the truth is the evidence, other
than the cemetery at Qustul, has been known for some time but it has been
either ignored or wrongly interpreted and dated.

When the Qustul incense burner was subjected to geochemical analysis, it was
found to be made from a distinctive mineral typically found at Nubian sites
such as Aswan, Kalabsha, and Meroe. Did it seem plausible that Egyptians would
have quarried Nubian stone, transported it back to Egypt, carved it into a
distinctly Nubian style of incense burner, then export the censer back to
Nubia? Probably not.

But if the Nubians were organized in a kingdom as early as 3300 B.C., why had
no previous evidence been found for this mysterious African state? In fact, it
had. Egyptologists had simply failed to grasp the significance of this
evidence.

The Nubian desert, for example abounded with rock drawings from roughly the
same period as the Qustul incense burner, many showing distinctly "Egyptian"
themes and symbols.

Ivory seals from the A-Group period had been found featuring kingly serekhs. A
mud seal impression found at Siali - also dating from the A-Group period -
showed a man saluting a serekh surmounted by a falcon. The serekh was actually
labeled with a bow - the hieroglyphic emblem for Ta-Seti, Land of the Bow -
implying that the man was paying homage to a Nubian state. One bowl from Qustul
even showed vultures tearing at a fallen enemy who is labeled with the signs
for Ta-Shemau - Upper Egypt - possibly indicating that the Nubians had defeated
Upper Egypt in battle.

Every one of these inscriptions had been found in Nubia. Yet experts had always
assumed that they referred to an Egyptian monarchy, rather than a Nubian one.
Why, then, should experts assume that every recognizable symbol of royal
authority found in that country would be of foreign origin? Some critics
insisted that the Qustul censer must have been an Egyptian import, despite the
fact that it was a typically Nubian object made of indisputably Nubian stone.

For nine generations or more, according to the sequence of tombs in Cemetery L,
some 12 kings at Qustul participated with other kings in Upper Egypt in the
creation of a unified culture. For Egypt, they helped fashion pharaonic
civilization and thus a legacy for the First Dynasty which the world has
marveled at for millennia. For Nubia, they established an early political unit
and led that country to its first cultural distinction.

Seele speculated that the tombs might be royal, evidence of a long-lost dynasty
of Nubian kings. Unfortunately, this theory flew in the face of conventional
opinion. Seele's theory was subjected to the worst fate known to academia - the
silent treatment.

Following his discovery, several major scholarly works were published on
Nubia's A-Group culture. But none made even passing reference to the mysterious
Cemetery L. For more than ten years, Cemetery L was ignored as completely as if
its treasures lay, still unexcavated, at the bottom of Lake Nasser.

Seele died of cancer without ever seeing his theory vindicated. Seele had gone
to his grave believing that Nubian kings lay buried in Cemetery L. But he had
never imagined that those kings might have been pharaohs, arraying themselves
in all the formal regalia of an Egyptian monarch.

As a result of the reexamination of data concerning ancient Nubia, many
scholars have concluded that the Nubians were an extremely sophisticated people
who built cities, roads, and temples comparable to those of the people of Egypt
in the north. It has even been suggested by one researcher that there were more
pyramids constructed in Nubia than in Egypt.

Ivan Van Sertima stated on Williams conclusions:

What is equally significant is the more recent discovery that there was some
pharaonic-type civilization developing parallel to Egypt through the centuries.
Bruce Williams, in a letter to me in 1984, maintained that a Kushite continuity
sustained the pharaonic impulse through the ages, from A-group (3300 B.C.)
right through to X-Group (550 A.D.). This, to put it in his own words,
'represents a new departure in the examination of Egypt's place in the African
context.

The rich graves of the A-Group kings contained gold jewelry, beautiful pottery,
and stone vessels…that rivaled the wealth of the Egyptian kings. Many of
these luxury objects were Near Eastern or Egyptian, indicating that the A-Group
carried on extensive trade with those areas.

In time, the Egyptian and Nubian kingdoms became enemies, and the Egyptian
kings, the same ones who built the pyramids, invaded Nubia. The Egyptians
conquered the A-Group and ruled the 'Land of the Bow' as a colony.

However, south of the Third Cataract - beyond the area of Egyptian control, the
Nubians remained independent and continued to grow strong.

The debate over how old dynastic Egypt was, will continue…but it is important
to note two things in this connection. One, it further invalidates any claim to
Sumerian or Mesopotamian primacy or any significant influence on the Egyptians
of the pyramid age - the earliest hard dating of materials found at Ur, the
first Sumerian city-state, is 2600 B.C., whereas the most conservative date for
the first Egyptian dynasty is 3100 B.C.

Two, it does not affect the dating of the first pharaonic dynasty in Nubia
since the methods used to arrive at that dating would still place Ta-Seti at
least 200 years before the first Egyptian dynasty (whatever that date may be).
Discussion with Dr. Bruce Williams has established that very clearly.

Current evidence indicates that the Nubians and Egyptians may be ethnically the
same with cultures coming from similar sources.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of further archaeological study at Qustul, or any
other site in Nubia, is all but impossible became many of the primary areas of
investigation now lie under 250 feet of water, at the bottom of Lake Nasser.
This man-made lake covers an area of approximately 1,550 square miles, and it
is the second largest man-made lake in the world.

During the construction of the Aswan High Dam (1960 - 1968) and the subsequent
creation of Lake Nasser, 40 Nubian villages were relocated further inland.
Thousands of Nubians were resettled in and around the city of Aswan and in
villages further north; however, an untold number drowned when they refused to
leave the lands that their ancestors had occupied for more than 5,000 years.

[Nubian Rescue by Rex Keating) writes:
All 23 temples and shrines were saved and re-erected elsewhere. Four of them,
from Egypt, went overseas; the temple of Dendur now stands in New York's
Metropolitan Museum of Fine Art, Taffeh has come to rest in Holland where it
may be seen at Leyden, Ellesyn is in Turin and Debod at Madrid. In 1969 the
archaeological survey team working in the Sudan reached the Dal Cataract, the
extreme southern limit affected by Lake Nasser. Their work had ended and a year
later the last two expeditions in Sudanese Nubia were forced by the rising
waters to leave. By 1971 Nubia had passed into history. The cost was
$41,774,458. Governments were cajoled while radio and film, television and the
press were tempted into playing their part in the world pattern of mass
persuasion to save Abu Simbel. And it worked.

The decision to build the High Dam was basically humanitarian, not political as
has been so often represented. The generating capacity of its 12 turbines is in
excess of Egypt's foreseeable needs for years to come. The reservoir behind the
dam (known as Lake Nasser) is long and narrow, covering an area of three
thousand square miles and extending across two hundred miles of Egyptian
territory and a hundred miles over the border into the Sudan, and it will bring
two million more acres of land under cultivation.

In addition to the displacement of human beings, a total of 18 ancient temples
were dismantled and relocated. These temples were presented as gifts to those
nations that assisted in the construction of the Aswan High Dam.

There is no way to estimate the total number of temples and tombs which now lie
at the bottom of Lake Nasser, nor is there any way of knowing the many secrets
these structures currently hold. Because of the creation of the Aswan Dam, the
world will never have an opportunity to study the full impact Africans from the
southern Nile Valley had on the development of ancient Egypt and subsequent
civilizations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
King Merenptah kingmerenptah@aol.com
Sources:

[Nubian Rescue by Rex Keating) writes:
All 23 temples and shrines were saved and re-erected elsewhere. Four of them, from Egypt, went overseas; the temple of Dendur now stands in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Fine Art, Taffeh has come to rest in Holland where it may be seen at Leyden, Ellesyn is in Turin and Debod at Madrid. In 1969 the archaeological survey team working in the Sudan reached the Dal Cataract, the extreme southern limit affected by Lake Nasser. Their work had ended and a year later the last two expeditions in Sudanese Nubia were forced by the rising waters to leave. By 1971 Nubia had passed into history. The cost was $41,774,458. Governments were cajoled while radio and film, television and the press were tempted into playing their part in the world pattern of mass persuasion to save Abu Simbel. And it worked.

In addition to the displacement of human beings, a total of 18 ancient temples were dismantled and relocated. These temples were presented as gifts to those nations that assisted in the construction of the Aswan High Dam.

There is no way to estimate the total number of temples and tombs which now lie at the bottom of Lake Nasser, nor is there any way of knowing the many secrets these structures currently hold. Because of the creation of the Aswan Dam, the world will never have an opportunity to study the full impact Africans from the southern Nile Valley had on the development of ancient Egypt and subsequent civilizations.

---

Truly an unfortunate development. I am not particularly enthusiastic about the idea of temples being shipped off to foreign nations, but I guess that is how the world is.

quote:

---

Abaza:
I hate to tell you this, but this guy is Nubian and Not a true Egyptian. Nubians live in Egypt and Sudan and they are very distinct from the average Egyptian.

---

quote:

---

Abaza:
I hate to tell you this, but this guy is Nubian and Not a true Egyptian. Nubians live in Egypt and Sudan and they are very distinct from the average Egyptian.

---

This was a part of an exchange that involved the usual pattern of telling a series of fibs resulting in an incoherent and contradictory argument.
Abaza:

* stated that genetic studies proved that AE were 'caucasian'.

* he was challenged to provide said study, but of course could not.

* he was shown and actual genetic study showing affinity between modern Upper Egypt and Nubia, and relative distinction of both from the Delta inhabitants.

* his 'answer' to this was that Nubians are also 'caucasian'.

* but then he was shown pictures of 'black' Upper Egyptians.

* leading to the above quote that: "Nubians are very distinct" from the 'average Egyptian'.

People such as Abaza depend upon the fact that on the internet one can often make a series of contradictory statements, with no one following your train of thought closely enough to observe that it ends, in fact....in a complete train wreck. And how many times have we observed that pattern at Egyptsearch.com? It's no wonder then, that the Eurocentrists always sound so angry, bitter and beaten. They can either keep silent or speak up, and in doing so expose the contradictions inherent in all fibbing arguments.