note- 1-The kushite empire extended even more far to the south later. 2-rome never conqured kush but they did conqured some parts of it than was forced to give up the parts they conqured after losing the war to kush.
3- meriotic could be read but only some of it could be understood.
4-this is a likeness of queen amairenas There may have found more since than.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
B...S...! It's a lousy and deceptive lesson plan. Did you read this crap?? It's the old fake out of "You niggas can have Kush, but leave Egypt alone!" - that's what's implied; and Kush is used here as a euphemism for Blacks - ie, "Tiye was a Kushite"...
The history of Kush, Meroe, etc. should certainly be researched and taught, but only in the context of it's existence as part of the ancient Nile Valley Civilization. We cannot continue to allow this "African apartheid" presentation of African history; some of us need to become more sophisticated in judging these matters.
quote: rasol said it better in commenting on a book about "The Kushites" In other words Kush in this book is neither a nation, a culture, or a people, but rather an artificial and implicitly racial construct created by Europeans to 'assign' Africans to a sealed off corner in the history of the Nile Valley.
posted
What should be incorporated into this lesson plan is that both early pre-dyanstic Egypt and Nubia share a common origin in the early Saharan culture. Up for discussion things like the Khartoum Mesolithic/Neolithic and its development of early culture in both pre-dyanstic Egypt and Nubia.
The person with the plan should also highlight archaeological findings like tomb 33 and the Qustal incense burner which indicate pharoanic kingship might have arose in A-group Nubia. The indications is also that Qustal proves that the early A-group Nubian culture had a similar insitution of pharoanic kingship.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What should be incorporated into this lesson plan is that both early pre-dyanstic Egypt and Nubia share a common origin in the early Saharan culture. Up for discussion things like the Khartoum Mesolithic/Neolithic and its development of early culture in both pre-dyanstic Egypt and Nubia.
The person with the plan should also highlight archaeological findings like tomb 33 and the Qustal incense burner which indicate pharoanic kingship might have arose in A-group Nubia. The indications is also that Qustal proves that the early A-group Nubian culture had a similar insitution of pharoanic kingship.
Absolutely.
It also must be denoted that the southern region of Km.t and areas further south are denoted as Ta-Seti and Ta-Khent - which literally references the first nome of Km.t
That there was NEVER a country named Nubia in antiquity.
Nubia, which comes from 'nub' meaning gold in mdw ntr, is mainly a geographical reference to gold mining regions of Km.t.
As such, Nubia PROPER is a Kemetic [Ancient Egyptian term] for a part of Km.t.
It is not a Nilo saharan Kushitic term for the nation of Qavs {kush}.
There is no ancient [dynastic era] nation of Nubia, there is no modern nation of Nubia either.
Nubia is a region that is a part of Egypt and Sudan - TODAY, and so was it - a part of pr-dynastic TaSeti, and dynastic Km.t and then Kush.
Different native Black Nile Valley Africans live in Nubia and Km.t - there is no singular linguistic, physical or political division that can divide the ancient Nile Valley into "nubians" and "egyptians".
The former concept is a malapropism, the later is Greek.
A part of the hidden agenda of Nubianology is to keep Africnists chasing 'nubian' phantasms while segregating Nubia from Egypt.
To do this -history is freely and grossly re-constructed and perverted.
Of all the recent ruses of Eurocentrism, I think Nubia-"ism" is the most effective, because Africanists keep investing in it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Of all the recent ruses of Eurocentrism, I think Nubia-"ism" is the most effective, because Africanists keep investing in it.
Hence, it is the responsibility of Africanists to habitually use terms in the exact contexts as they were used by the native ancient Nile Valley folks, rather than emulating later invaders of the region, and contemporary Euro-centered folks, who will not change their [intentional] erroneous interpretations just to please truth-seekers and Africanists. I've seen at places, where wording along the lines of, "Egyptian and Africans", is used as though to imply that the former is less African. Insistence on using names of Nile Valley regions and associated socio-political terms, in the context put forth by the ancient Nile Valley indigenes, while understanding the geographical orientations of those regions in the context of our contemporary understandings of geography, will contribute further to the pressing for the reality that, when it comes to 'African-ness', no particular Nile Valley region is given precedence over another. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: What should be incorporated into this lesson plan is that both early pre-dyanstic Egypt and Nubia share a common origin in the early Saharan culture. Up for discussion things like the Khartoum Mesolithic/Neolithic and its development of early culture in both pre-dyanstic Egypt and Nubia.
The person with the plan should also highlight archaeological findings like tomb 33 and the Qustal incense burner which indicate pharoanic kingship might have arose in A-group Nubia. The indications is also that Qustal proves that the early A-group Nubian culture had a similar insitution of pharoanic kingship.
I agree. But I have heard the Qustul claims of the incense burner as pharonic claims have been challenged.
We might never know as that area is now underwater.
Wegner, J. 1996. Interaction between the Nubian A-Group and Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Incense Burner. In T. Celenko (ed.), _Egypt in Africa_:98-100. Indianapolis: Indianapolis Museum of Art.
Wegner pointed out
"...The evidence from Umm el Gabb [Abydos] demonstrates that not only pharaonic kingship, but also the primary elements of a centralized state system, including writing and a complex administrative and governmental apparatus, were evolving in Egypt for several centuries _prior_ to the 1st Dynasty. Although Classic/Terminal A-Group society has been shown to be more complex and politically organized than previously thought (O'Connor: 1991; 1993:20-23), there is no comparable evidence for the long-term development of such institutions in the A-Group (Also Adams: 1985). The A-Group civilization and adaptation of pharaonic imagery and use of Egyptian style royal titulary and possibly hieroglyphic symbols in connection with the kingship emerged full-blown in the Classi/Terminal period. The development of pharaonic iconography and symbols, and the hieroglyphic writing system is firmly rooted in indigenous cultural and social processes in Egypt. There is thus no evidence to support the contention that the A-Group culture was the fount of the institutions of pharaonic kingship.
The participation and political emergence of the A-Group does not, however, indicate either the Nubian development of the iconography and institution of pharaonic kingship or the A-Group conquest and unification of Egypt. On the contrary, the Classic/Terminal A-Group period in Lower Nubia is the final phase of a long-lived culture that had evolved over the course of nearly a thousand years. Contemporary with the final unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty, the A-Group disappeared completely -- erased in the prime of its development. Lower Nubia was depopulated for over 300 years, until the emergence of the C-Group culture...This eradication of the A-Group culture becomes extremely difficult to explain if the A-Group kings themselves were the cultural progenitors of the pharaonic civilization." (Wegner 1996: 98-99)
Archaeologically, it has been shown that social stratification necessary to create a "kingship" concept was not present in ancient Nubian culture until after the beginning of the dynastic period, by which time the kingship system was well-established.* Hoffman in his _Egypt Before the Pharaohs_, (New York, 1979) presented the archaeological evidence [ as evidenced by the creation of elite tombs of greater size and valuables] that shows the influence went from Egypt to Nubia in the concept of the "divine king" as opposed to your statement. He notes:
"In Lower Nubia [/Sudan], however, this social order did not emerge. The society remained more or less egalitarian until the impact of Egypt was felt directly. For example, Reisner's successor in Nubia, C.M. Firth, excavated what appears to be the earliest example of a 'chiefly' grave in Lower Nubia in the late Gerzean[/Naqada II] or Protodynastic times (ca 3300-3100 BC). At Cemetery 137 Firth discovered a group of rectangular graves roofed by large sandstone slabs. Many appear to have served as family tombs, since a number of burials were found inside. One grave in particular was comparatively rich, boasting many heavy copper axes, chisels, and bar ingots; several stone vases, a dipper of banded slate, a lion's head of rose quartz, covered with green faience glaze, a mica mirror, two maces with gold-plated handles and two large bird-shaped palettes (Firth, 1927: 206 and Trigger, 1965:75). Judging from the style of animals on one of the mace handles and the round-toppoed variety of ther adz, the grave can be dated to the early part of the First Dynasty -- the very moment when Egypt was undergoing unification. But compared to contemporary graves in Egypt, this tomb is poor indeed and a late expression of emerging social-economic class distinctions; and there is clearly an attempt to import the ritual paraphernalia already associated with emergent Egyptian kingship (e.g., the maceheads and palette)." [Hoffman, 1979: 260]
As O'Connor pointed out, in the section cited by Wegner, about the Qustul burner:
"Williams' theory is exciting, but the evidence for it is not convincing. At the time his theory was published, the Qustul 'royal' tombs antedated the earliest royal tombs of Egypt, of Nakada phase IIIb. But recently an Abydos royal tomb of IIIA has been found [Tomb of U-j - KGG], so Qustul loses chronological primacy.
There are unusual objects in Egyptian style at Qustul, but they are all likely to have been imports from Egypt, not products of Nubia. Two vessels, for example, have painted designs, according to Williams, the conquest of southern Egypt (Ta shemau) and of Hierakanopolis, a town of that region; but the worn signs may be misread, and in any case would refer to conquests by the Egyptians _by_ Egyptians, since the vases are of Egyptian origin.
A stone incense burner [the Qustul burner - KGG] is of special importance. It was carved with motifs Egyptian in style and content (including a depiction of a pharaoh in a traditional crown), yet incense burners are typical of Nubia, not Egypt. Surely it, and therefore its pharaonic iconography, are Nubian in origin, Williams argued. But it is more plausible (because of the thoroughly A-Group or Nubian character of the Qustul cemetery) to suggest that the incense burner was made in Egypt, or decorated by Egyptian artisans, as a special gift for the ruler of Qustul of the day.
The real importance of the Qustul cemetery is that the size and richness of the graves indicate rulers (possibly 3 to 8; Williams suggests 10-12) were buried there, together with their high-status kinfolk. Moreover, because no other Terminal A-Group cemetery approached the importance of the Qustul cemetery, its occupants likely controlled all of Lower Nubia, which would have formed a unitary political unit. In geographical and population size, this entity would have been a complex chiefdom and not a state, but its rulers were sufficiently high in status to be called 'kings.'
Already then, early in the Bronze Age, at least one part of Nubia was on its way to statehood, and was a 'proto-kingdom' like those found earlier in Egypt. Moreover, earlier -- in the classic A-Group -- there were also rulers, like the one buried in an elite cemetery labeled 137, with two maces -- symbols of kingly power imported from Egypt. Their handles were sheathed in gold and decorated, in one case, with rows of animals. Whether such Classic A-Group chiefs ruled only parts of Lower Nubia or all of it, they indicate that political centralization was becoming a feature of Nubian society prior to the development of the royal cemetery at Qustul.
The End of the A-Group
Early in the Egyptian 1st Dynasty, the A-Group ended and the Nubians were driven from Lower Nubia, not to return for about 6 centuries. This can only have been due to organized Egyptian aggression, intended to place this trade corridor, and the source of valuable stones and gold (in flanking deserts), under direct Egyptian control.
The Egyptians not only prevented Nubian resettlement; early in the 4th Dynasty (ca. 2500 BC) they founded in Lower Nubia several strategically placed towns, such as Buhen. These improved Egypt's access to Lower Nubian mineral sources and perhaps reflect an increased volume of trade with Upper Nubia. However, some 160 years later Egypt abandoned these towns, and Nubians began to resettle Lower Nubia..." (O'Connor 1993: 20-23)
O'Connor, D. 1993. _Ancient Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa_. Philadelphia: University Museum/ Univ. of Pennsylvania.
Hoffman cites Trigger as to why this social stratification was limited in lower Nubia even in Protodynastic times, and can be summarized as follows:
a) no opportunities for the land in Lower Nubia to acquire any special value which would develop a public authority and the state;
b) At most Nubian chieftains appeared to have served as tribute/toll takers along the riverside, controlling the passage of trade up the Nile in regional fashion. While this may have placed them, by their wealth, at the apex of their immediate society, it was enough to support their immediate retainers, and not in a state or overall public authoritative function.
c) In other cases, Trigger believes the Nubian chieftain served as do their modern contemporaries, the village omdahs, as a "first among equals. In any case, the power which any of these chiefs was limited both in terms of area and authority."
["History and Settlement in Lower Nubia", Bruce Trigger, Yale University, 1965, Publications in Anthropology 69: 75]
Adams, W.Y. "Doubts about the Lost Pharaohs". Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44 (1985): 185-192; Leclant, J. "An Introduction to the Civilization of Nubia: From the Earliest Times to the New Kingdom". In Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan, ed. F. Hintze, 15-18. Meroitica 5. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1979. According to O'Connor, D. Ancient Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa [Philadelphia: University Museum, 1993], 21: "Williams' theory is exciting but the evidence for it is not convincing. At the time his theory was published, the Qustul 'royal' tombs antedated the earliest royal tombs of Egypt, of Nakada phase IIIB. But recently an Abydos royal tomb of IIIA has been found, so Qustul loses chronological primacy." See also O'Connor, D. "Chiefs or Kings? Rethinking Early Nubian Politics". Expedition 35.2 (1993): 4-14.
Bruce Williams, who published the excavations [carried out by the University of Chicago at Qustul], argued that these graves were 'royal', onthe basis of their size and construction, and the abundance and variety of the objects associated with them. Williams is undoubtedly right that the graves represent an important centre of power in the Qustul region. Williams, however, went further than suggesting that this was a powerful Nubian monarchy which had strong contacts with Egypt. He proposed firstly that this was the first 'pharaonic' royal cemetery, predating those of Upper Egypt, and secondly that these Nubian kings actually conquered Upper Egypt. Williams argued that the Upper Egyptian monarchy was, in fact, of Nubian origin.
"Williams's theory was immediately refuted by another leading Nubian archaeologist, W.Y. Adams, who insisted that there was no evidence that the Qustul Cemetery represented the nascent pharaonic monarchy [1].
"The arguments focussed on a number of objects which were argued to be local products and which displayed 'pharaonic' motifs. It is certain that these objects are actually imported from Egypt. One of the most significant was a limestone incense burner, with sunk relief decoration showing a seated royal figure wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt [...].
"Since Bruce Williams published his ideas, excavations at Abydos have now found 'royal' Egyptian graves which actually predate the Qustul burials. Nevertheless, the Qustul cemetery is good evidence that the rapid development of powerful states in the period around 3100 BC was not confined to Egypt, and that there was a mutual influence [...]" (pp. 43-44).
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While we are at it, here is yet another interpretation of the relationship between Egyptian polities in the upper Nile Valley and the so-called A-Group "Nubians":
"...Evidence of extensive contact between Upper Egypt and Nubia in later Predynastic times is indicative of the increasing interest in prestige goods. Numerous Nagada culture trade goods have been found at most A-Group sites in Nubia between Kubania in the north and Saras in the south. These include jars that may have contained beer or wine, and Wavy-handled jars. Other Nagada pottery classes are found at A-Group sites, as are Naqada craft goods: copper tools, stone vessels and palettes, linen, and beads of stone and faience (Nordstrom 1972: 24; Smith 1991: 108).
A-group burials are very similar to graves of the Nagada culture, but inspite of similar burials and grave goods Trigger (1976: 33) thinks that the A-Group developed from an indigenous population that was in contact with Upper Egypt and much influenced by Nagada culture. A-Group wares are distinctive, and few A-Group artifacts have been found in Upper Egyptian graves, suggesting that the A-Group acted as middlemen in a trading network with Upper Egypt (Trigger 1976: 39). Luxury materials, such as ivory, ebony, incense, and exotic animal skins, all greatly desired in Dynastic times as well, came from father south and passed through Nubia. Kaiser (1957: 74, fig. 26), however, interprets the A-Group evidence as a "colonial" penetration into Lower Nubia to exploit trade and raw materials (Needler 1984: 29).
In his analysis of the Classic A-Group (contemporaneous with Nagada III) "royal" Cemetery L at Qustal, Williams (1986: 177) proposes another theory: that this cemetery represents Nubian rulers who were responsible for unifying Egypt and founding the early Egyptian state. The A-Group in Nubia, though, appears to have been a separate culture from that of Predynastic Upper Egypt, and the model that may best explain the archaeological evidence is one of accelerated contact between the two regions in later Predynastic times. That the material culture of the Nagada culture was later found in northern Egypt (with no Nubian elements) would seem to argue against William's theory of a Nubian origin for the Early Dynastic state in Egypt.
The unification of Egypt took place in late Predynastic times, but the processes involved in this major transition to the Dynastic state are poorly understood. What is truly unique about this state is the integration of rule over an extensive geographic region, in contrast to the other contemporaneous Near Eastern polities in Nubia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant. Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt…" - Prof. Kathryn Bard; Journal of Field Archaeology
Whether Egyptian style "Pharaonic" kingship originated in Upper Egypt, or in the settings of A-Group "Nubians", is besides the point of shared cultural traits; kinship is kinship, and certainly elements of Egyptian kinship could be related to those elsewhere on the continent, where direct contact with ancient Egyptians need NOT be pursued. What I fear could be lost here, is the earlier point Ausar made, which was:
quote: What should be incorporated into this lesson plan is that both early pre-dyanstic Egypt and Nubia share a common origin in the early Saharan culture. Up for discussion things like the Khartoum Mesolithic/Neolithic and its development of early culture in both pre-dyanstic Egypt and Nubia.
quote:I agree. But I have heard the Qustul claims of the incense burner as pharonic claims have been challenged.
We might never know as that area is now underwater.
Wegner, J. 1996. Interaction between the Nubian A-Group and Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Incense Burner. In T. Celenko (ed.), _Egypt in Africa_:98-100. Indianapolis: Indianapolis Museum of Art.
Wegner pointed out
"...The evidence from Umm el Gabb [Abydos] demonstrates that not only pharaonic kingship, but also the primary elements of a centralized state system, including writing and a complex administrative and governmental apparatus, were evolving in Egypt for several centuries _prior_ to the 1st Dynasty. Although Classic/Terminal A-Group society has been shown to be more complex and politically organized than previously thought (O'Connor: 1991; 1993:20-23), there is no comparable evidence for the long-term development of such institutions in the A-Group (Also Adams: 1985). The A-Group civilization and adaptation of pharaonic imagery and use of Egyptian style royal titulary and possibly hieroglyphic symbols in connection with the kingship emerged full-blown in the Classi/Terminal period. The development of pharaonic iconography and symbols, and the hieroglyphic writing system is firmly rooted in indigenous cultural and social processes in Egypt. There is thus no evidence to support the contention that the A-Group culture was the fount of the institutions of pharaonic kingship.
The participation and political emergence of the A-Group does not, however, indicate either the Nubian development of the iconography and institution of pharaonic kingship or the A-Group conquest and unification of Egypt. On the contrary, the Classic/Terminal A-Group period in Lower Nubia is the final phase of a long-lived culture that had evolved over the course of nearly a thousand years. Contemporary with the final unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty, the A-Group disappeared completely -- erased in the prime of its development. Lower Nubia was depopulated for over 300 years, until the emergence of the C-Group culture...This eradication of the A-Group culture becomes extremely difficult to explain if the A-Group kings themselves were the cultural progenitors of the pharaonic civilization." (Wegner 1996: 98-99)
Archaeologically, it has been shown that social stratification necessary to create a "kingship" concept was not present in ancient Nubian culture until after the beginning of the dynastic period, by which time the kingship system was well-established.* Hoffman in his _Egypt Before the Pharaohs_, (New York, 1979) presented the archaeological evidence [ as evidenced by the creation of elite tombs of greater size and valuables] that shows the influence went from Egypt to Nubia in the concept of the "divine king" as opposed to your statement. He notes:
"In Lower Nubia [/Sudan], however, this social order did not emerge. The society remained more or less egalitarian until the impact of Egypt was felt directly. For example, Reisner's successor in Nubia, C.M. Firth, excavated what appears to be the earliest example of a 'chiefly' grave in Lower Nubia in the late Gerzean[/Naqada II] or Protodynastic times (ca 3300-3100 BC). At Cemetery 137 Firth discovered a group of rectangular graves roofed by large sandstone slabs. Many appear to have served as family tombs, since a number of burials were found inside. One grave in particular was comparatively rich, boasting many heavy copper axes, chisels, and bar ingots; several stone vases, a dipper of banded slate, a lion's head of rose quartz, covered with green faience glaze, a mica mirror, two maces with gold-plated handles and two large bird-shaped palettes (Firth, 1927: 206 and Trigger, 1965:75). Judging from the style of animals on one of the mace handles and the round-toppoed variety of ther adz, the grave can be dated to the early part of the First Dynasty -- the very moment when Egypt was undergoing unification. But compared to contemporary graves in Egypt, this tomb is poor indeed and a late expression of emerging social-economic class distinctions; and there is clearly an attempt to import the ritual paraphernalia already associated with emergent Egyptian kingship (e.g., the maceheads and palette)." [Hoffman, 1979: 260]
As O'Connor pointed out, in the section cited by Wegner, about the Qustul burner:
"Williams' theory is exciting, but the evidence for it is not convincing. At the time his theory was published, the Qustul 'royal' tombs antedated the earliest royal tombs of Egypt, of Nakada phase IIIb. But recently an Abydos royal tomb of IIIA has been found [Tomb of U-j - KGG], so Qustul loses chronological primacy.
There are unusual objects in Egyptian style at Qustul, but they are all likely to have been imports from Egypt, not products of Nubia. Two vessels, for example, have painted designs, according to Williams, the conquest of southern Egypt (Ta shemau) and of Hierakanopolis, a town of that region; but the worn signs may be misread, and in any case would refer to conquests by the Egyptians _by_ Egyptians, since the vases are of Egyptian origin.
A stone incense burner [the Qustul burner - KGG] is of special importance. It was carved with motifs Egyptian in style and content (including a depiction of a pharaoh in a traditional crown), yet incense burners are typical of Nubia, not Egypt. Surely it, and therefore its pharaonic iconography, are Nubian in origin, Williams argued. But it is more plausible (because of the thoroughly A-Group or Nubian character of the Qustul cemetery) to suggest that the incense burner was made in Egypt, or decorated by Egyptian artisans, as a special gift for the ruler of Qustul of the day.
The real importance of the Qustul cemetery is that the size and richness of the graves indicate rulers (possibly 3 to 8; Williams suggests 10-12) were buried there, together with their high-status kinfolk. Moreover, because no other Terminal A-Group cemetery approached the importance of the Qustul cemetery, its occupants likely controlled all of Lower Nubia, which would have formed a unitary political unit. In geographical and population size, this entity would have been a complex chiefdom and not a state, but its rulers were sufficiently high in status to be called 'kings.'
Already then, early in the Bronze Age, at least one part of Nubia was on its way to statehood, and was a 'proto-kingdom' like those found earlier in Egypt. Moreover, earlier -- in the classic A-Group -- there were also rulers, like the one buried in an elite cemetery labeled 137, with two maces -- symbols of kingly power imported from Egypt. Their handles were sheathed in gold and decorated, in one case, with rows of animals. Whether such Classic A-Group chiefs ruled only parts of Lower Nubia or all of it, they indicate that political centralization was becoming a feature of Nubian society prior to the development of the royal cemetery at Qustul.
The End of the A-Group
Early in the Egyptian 1st Dynasty, the A-Group ended and the Nubians were driven from Lower Nubia, not to return for about 6 centuries. This can only have been due to organized Egyptian aggression, intended to place this trade corridor, and the source of valuable stones and gold (in flanking deserts), under direct Egyptian control.
The Egyptians not only prevented Nubian resettlement; early in the 4th Dynasty (ca. 2500 BC) they founded in Lower Nubia several strategically placed towns, such as Buhen. These improved Egypt's access to Lower Nubian mineral sources and perhaps reflect an increased volume of trade with Upper Nubia. However, some 160 years later Egypt abandoned these towns, and Nubians began to resettle Lower Nubia..." (O'Connor 1993: 20-23)
O'Connor, D. 1993. _Ancient Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa_. Philadelphia: University Museum/ Univ. of Pennsylvania.
Hoffman cites Trigger as to why this social stratification was limited in lower Nubia even in Protodynastic times, and can be summarized as follows:
a) no opportunities for the land in Lower Nubia to acquire any special value which would develop a public authority and the state;
b) At most Nubian chieftains appeared to have served as tribute/toll takers along the riverside, controlling the passage of trade up the Nile in regional fashion. While this may have placed them, by their wealth, at the apex of their immediate society, it was enough to support their immediate retainers, and not in a state or overall public authoritative function.
c) In other cases, Trigger believes the Nubian chieftain served as do their modern contemporaries, the village omdahs, as a "first among equals. In any case, the power which any of these chiefs was limited both in terms of area and authority."
["History and Settlement in Lower Nubia", Bruce Trigger, Yale University, 1965, Publications in Anthropology 69: 75]
Adams, W.Y. "Doubts about the Lost Pharaohs". Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44 (1985): 185-192; Leclant, J. "An Introduction to the Civilization of Nubia: From the Earliest Times to the New Kingdom". In Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan, ed. F. Hintze, 15-18. Meroitica 5. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1979. According to O'Connor, D. Ancient Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa [Philadelphia: University Museum, 1993], 21: "Williams' theory is exciting but the evidence for it is not convincing. At the time his theory was published, the Qustul 'royal' tombs antedated the earliest royal tombs of Egypt, of Nakada phase IIIB. But recently an Abydos royal tomb of IIIA has been found, so Qustul loses chronological primacy." See also O'Connor, D. "Chiefs or Kings? Rethinking Early Nubian Politics". Expedition 35.2 (1993): 4-14.
Bruce Williams, who published the excavations [carried out by the University of Chicago at Qustul], argued that these graves were 'royal', onthe basis of their size and construction, and the abundance and variety of the objects associated with them. Williams is undoubtedly right that the graves represent an important centre of power in the Qustul region. Williams, however, went further than suggesting that this was a powerful Nubian monarchy which had strong contacts with Egypt. He proposed firstly that this was the first 'pharaonic' royal cemetery, predating those of Upper Egypt, and secondly that these Nubian kings actually conquered Upper Egypt. Williams argued that the Upper Egyptian monarchy was, in fact, of Nubian origin.
"Williams's theory was immediately refuted by another leading Nubian archaeologist, W.Y. Adams, who insisted that there was no evidence that the Qustul Cemetery represented the nascent pharaonic monarchy [1].
"The arguments focussed on a number of objects which were argued to be local products and which displayed 'pharaonic' motifs. It is certain that these objects are actually imported from Egypt. One of the most significant was a limestone incense burner, with sunk relief decoration showing a seated royal figure wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt [...].
"Since Bruce Williams published his ideas, excavations at Abydos have now found 'royal' Egyptian graves which actually predate the Qustul burials. Nevertheless, the Qustul cemetery is good evidence that the rapid development of powerful states in the period around 3100 BC was not confined to Egypt, and that there was a mutual influence [...]" (pp. 43-44)
Do me a favor. Before you cite somebody's citation, make sure you read each of the references they cite. Kathrine Griffths Greenberg wrote this,and sometimes has a tendency to halfway cite information. For instance she will always cite Michael Hoffman but ignore this passage from Michael Hoffman:
The reason for her (Nubia) tendancy to lag behind her rich northern neighbor has sometimes been explained in terms of racial inferiority. But in physical affinity the peoples of this region cannot be differentiated from those of southern Upper Egypt. An environmental explanation is more accurate, since lower Nubia possessed only limitted amounts of tillable land." ("Egypt Before the Pharaohs" Michael Hoffman 1991)
People like W.Y. Adams and Bruce Williams both have published articles in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies debating about the origin of the Qustal incense burner. One thing that is certain is the incense burner depicts the red crown of Upper Egypt and that it was locally manufactured by A-Group Nubians,so there is no need for theories that its of Egyptian origin. The material was made locally from material found around Qustal.
William J. Murnane's article in JNES 1987 proved that the incense burner was of local A-group Nubian manufacture. No such incense burner has been found in the pre-dyanstic Naqada culture.
Yes, most mainstream archaeologist and Egyptologist place the origin of the pharoanic dyansty to Abydos. The people who founded that pharoanic kingship were from the Naqada area. Remains from the Naqada area are very similar to A-group Nubian remains according to Nancy Lovell and Dr. Shomarka Keita.
Wheather or not the Qustal incense burner proves that Upper Egyptians adopted it from Nubians or vice versa is debatable. What the incense burner does demonstrate is that the insitution of pharoanic kingship developed and that A-group was a strong centralized state. Western Nubiologist and Egyptologist have a tendency to think that the various named Nubian cultures were simple cheiftains when even Egyptian literature itself such the the Letters of Harkhuf prove that C-Group Nubians were capable of forming into a complex state, Harkhuf was alarmed by the formation of this state,and mentions it from his various trips into regions south of the First cataract.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Williams argued that the Upper Egyptian monarchy was, in fact, of Nubian origin...
Who really cares what Williams or anyone else argues or debates. According to the Ancient Egyptians themselves, who would know, they are explicit about the origins of the royal dynasties.
And there was no such thing as Nubian origin; the monarchy did not originate in the gold producing regions of Egypt/Sudan!
It's all silliness, really...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The civilization of Ancient Egypt is the head on the body of African civilization. The moral and ideological benefits of this Ancient Black Civilization provides a legitimate base upon which to build a corpus of Classical African Studies, in the same manner in which the Western world used its Classical Graeco-Roman heritage, and the establishment of a curriculum of Classical African Studies or African Humanities is a pre-requisite for a genuine modern and world wide African Renaissance. Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
diop would say it would be both kemit and(nubia) yam/kush,sudan etc,as the head.
I do not like the term egypt BUT I KNOW FOLKS WHO LIKE THE TERM NUBIA as well BOTH terms are greek and roman in origin and egypt most likely meant lower egypt,kemit is the more likely word but it is known as egypt today as well and that's not going to change any time soon even if we use the original terms for those who are aware .
See if you do not like the term nubia than the same must go for egypt,africa etc,so When these terms are used we know what is talked about.
SO LET'S use this standard for all outside terms not just egypt and stop nit picking about the term nubia, and yes egypt's origin did have a southern origin south of egypt.call it it yam, and wawat if you wish but using these terms would not change the fact that it's call nubia today as well,not just by outsiders, and really i think most white racist or other racist could give not give a damn if you call egypt, kemit,they want it all. what is most important to me is understanding the history and culture and to help spread it along with other african cultures and make sure it does not die or be taken over and not to be arm chair historians. My friend was a member of a group that practice the egyptian culture for instance but it's okay to study history for history sake but i do not think it should just stop there as well. peace.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kenndo: diop would say it would be both kemit and(nubia) yam/kush,sudan etc,as the head.
I do not like the term egypt BUT I KNOW FOLKS WHO LIKE THE TERM NUBIA as well BOTH terms are greek and roman in origin and egypt most likely meant lower egypt,kemit is the more likely word but it is known as egypt today as well and that's not going to change any time soon even if we use the original terms for those who are aware .
See if you do not like the term nubia than the same must go for egypt,africa etc,so When these terms are used we know what is talked about.
SO LET'S use this standard for all outside terms not just egypt and stop nit picking about the term nubia, and yes egypt's origin did have a southern origin south of egypt.call it it yam, and wawat if you wish but using these terms would not change the fact that it's call nubia today as well,not just by outsiders, and really i think most white racist or other racist could give not give a damn if you call egypt, kemit,they want it all. what is most important to me is understanding the history and culture and to help spread it along with other african cultures and make sure it does not die or be taken over and not to be arm chair historians. My friend was a member of a group that practice the egyptian culture for instance but it's okay to study history for history sake but i do not think it should just stop there as well. peace.
I suspect that this is a response to my claim that Africanists should get in the habit of calling the various “Nubian” regions as they were called by the ancient Nile Valley indigenes. There is a purpose to this; it is meant to alleviate confusion over the term “Nubia”, as though it [the term] ever represented a Nation of some sort encompassing that entire geography, but always excluding Egypt. “Nubia” has taken the twist of a sub-geography within Africa, and yet, never represented a Nation called “Nubia”. History shows a relatively more complex picture than that simple-minded portrayal of “Nubia”, with ever changing borders in the region during the various timeframes in antiquity. It has been used at times to represent an artificial political boundary, as the extent to which any affiliation of “Black Africa” to Northeast Africa should be limited. Choosing original names over the various other terms of outsiders, is to the discretion of the inheritors of the said culture, and it wouldn’t be a bad idea for Africanists to widely use them, if not for anything else, then at least to put things in the historical perspective. Also note that, “Egypt” is not the invention of Greeks per se, but supposed to be the bastardization of the original Egyptian term. Neither is the term “Nubia”, with respect to its origin, but it’s application was given a new twist by later European invaders.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kenndo: diop would say it would be both kemit and(nubia) yam/kush,sudan etc,as the head.
I do not like the term egypt BUT I KNOW FOLKS WHO LIKE THE TERM NUBIA as well BOTH terms are greek and roman in origin and egypt most likely meant lower egypt,kemit is the more likely word but it is known as egypt today as well and that's not going to change any time soon even if we use the original terms for those who are aware .
See if you do not like the term nubia than the same must go for egypt,africa etc,so When these terms are used we know what is talked about.
SO LET'S use this standard for all outside terms not just egypt and stop nit picking about the term nubia, and yes egypt's origin did have a southern origin south of egypt.call it it yam, and wawat if you wish but using these terms would not change the fact that it's call nubia today as well,not just by outsiders, and really i think most white racist or other racist could give not give a damn if you call egypt, kemit,they want it all. what is most important to me is understanding the history and culture and to help spread it along with other african cultures and make sure it does not die or be taken over and not to be arm chair historians. My friend was a member of a group that practice the egyptian culture for instance but it's okay to study history for history sake but i do not think it should just stop there as well. peace.
I suspect that this is a response to my claim that Africanists should get in the habit of calling the various “Nubian” regions as they were called by the ancient Nile Valley indigenes. There is a purpose to this; it is meant to alleviate confusion over the term “Nubia”, as though it ever represented a Nation of some sort encompassing that entire geography, but always excluding Egypt. “Nubia” has taken the twist of a sub-geography within Africa, and yet, never represented a Nation called “Nubia”. History shows a relatively more complex picture than that simple-minded portrayal of “Nubia”, with ever changing borders in the region during the various timeframes in antiquity. It has been used at times to represent an artificial political boundary, as the extent to which any affiliation of “Black Africa” to Northeast Africa should be limited. Choosing original names over the various other terms of outsiders, is to the discretion of the inheritors of the said culture, and it wouldn’t be a bad idea for Africanists to widely use them, if not for anything else, then at least to put things in the historical perspective. Also note that, “Egypt” is not the invention of Greeks per say, but supposed to be the bastardization of the original Egyptian term. Neither is the term “Nubia”, with respect to its origin, but it’s application was given a new twist by later European invaders.
I agree with you, my comments was not directLY to you,it is just a general statement,and i believe the correct terms should be use more often but as you know if we get too deep for some at first we start to lose them,more so the american kids because they have a short attention span.
I GUESS WHEN WE FALL BACK TO TERMS LIKE NUBIA,EGYPT ETC,IT'S A HABIT JUST like calling kemit- egypt,of course my old web. dictionary does mention nubia a kingdom,but i do not remember if it's only talking about lower nubia or nubia as a whole before the post meriotic period in ancient times and maybe it was really talking about kush when it had lower nubia.
I believe both could be done,study egypt by it self like it's mostly done here in this website but not all the time and to study it in terms of nile valley civilization as well and african civilization as whole,the same for nubia,mali,ghana etc.,
I guess that's my main point and i should have made it clear from the beginning. I AGREE the term egypt,nubia,africa etc, should be used at first and than explain why it's used and the correct or original names should be shown more and more even among some of people who live in that culture.ancient ethiopia is not used as much any more is a good example,so hopefully more african historians would use the original terms more and more but as you could see in some cases that has not happen yet,but i think that study plan above for ancient kush/nubia overall is a good study plan(with room for improvement) if you just want to study kush or the (nubian kingdoms or nubian civilization) as a whole by it self or mostly by it self like many do with egypt,greece,rome etc,etc, and LIKE some others plans i have seen/or read even if it's a start,since many folks in the world or america still do not have a good understanding of african history and culture still even up until today.
There should be a study of regions,states etc by it self,a region study and awhole study of africa and related issues as well.both or all could be done,and the study plan had some flaws-one example of the flaw is that the history chart for nubia should have started with nubian history(civilization much further back to 8000 b.c. or further even if you have to sum it up for the beginner and than go into more detail when get to 3800 b.c. OR LATER when they know the basic history they could research or study all of it in more detail.
I know many black kids or older folks in america that don't even really care about other blacks from the caribbean other parts of the world or even africa period because they have been so westernized,so i guess you have to start with the believers first or those who care or care enough and move on from there.peace.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: See if you do not like the term nubia than the same must go for egypt,africa etc,
Nubia or Nub.t is a native African term. Egypt, a Greek bastardisation of 'house of the spirt ptah' is also a legitimate name for 'post Ptolemy' lower nile vally - "Egypt". There is a country today called Egypt, there is a region called Nubia and people called Nubians - which is in and of Egypt and the Sudan.
The problem isn't with the existance of the word Kenndo, but with there mis-use.
There is never *any justification* for mis-using terms.
So you argument, known as - 'two wrong make a right', makes no sense.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tell that to the folks who write the books. ghana is misused too but it's still used to identify a early state,and i am not saying two wrongs make a right. like i said if it's misused it is still being used and writing about it here will not change that fact unless you go write the books yourself.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
if anyone puts up a post again about nubia or that term is used in the website or article i hope you go as hard on them as well. I put post that says nubia or kush PUT the meat of the issue is inside what the overall article is saying,not to nit pick about the term NUBIA,AND THE POST I PUT UP SAYS KUSH THIS TIME,A CERTAIN NATION IN NUBIA'S PAST,that's the point rasol. I think SOME OF US need a break from this forum because we are beginning to nit-pick at issues and not seeing the bigger picture.
forget,about what term should be used or not used for now,if i put something new about nubia,kush etc are you going to nit-pick about the term or are you going to look OR READ about the new discoveries being made? you have a way of twisting things,so do not make it about me because that's what you doing. I am just posting the articles . I THINK OTHERS here know what i mean even if you do not,i am not chasing it anymore.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:if anyone puts up a post again about nubia or that term is used in the website or article i hope you go as hard on them as well.
Sheer nonsense. I'll put up a website about Nubia myself if I like. I just won't lie about it, or repeat the lies of others. Nor will I post links from books that lie. That is the real issue here.
quote:I put post that says nubia or kush PUT the meat of the issue is inside what the overall article is saying,not to nit pick about the term NUBIA,AND THE POST I PUT UP SAYS KUSH THIS TIME,A CERTAIN NATION IN NUBIA'S PAST,that's the point rasol.
I don't understand the above. Can you rewrite and this time - explain exactly what comment made by 'me', you are addressing?
quote:forget,about what term should be used or not used for now
Why, so others can go on putting out false information and not become irritated when their falsehoods are exposed?
quote:if i put something new about nubia,kush etc are you going to nit-pick about the term or are you going to look OR READ about the new discoveries being made?
If your information is accurate, then you should have no problem keeping readers focused on the important issues - if your information is inaccurate, then you allow your own discourse to be mired down in destractions, while you end up *on the defensive*.
That is the case now, is it not?
quote:I am just posting the articles. I THINK OTHERS here know what i mean even if you do not,i am not chasing it anymore.
The question is - do "you" know what "you" mean?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i use them back and forth,and the truth is i do not have a problem too much with the name nubia ,or kush to descibe a certain region or state that is why i am not nit-picking about it,i use the original terms as well or i have articles that do.
The article was about the study plan overall not about the title of the article that is the issue,not me. I PUT the website up to show what's out there and what kids are learning about in history classes.that is the purpose for this post not to narrow it down on what terms should be used.
so it's not about me it's about YOU.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Kenndo, I want to improve the quality of our discourse, by re-posting the origin of my involvment in this thread:
We want you to address the issue at hand honestly, instead of striking defensive poses:
quote:posted by WAlly B...S...! It's a lousy and deceptive lesson plan. Did you read this crap?? It's the old fake out of "You niggas can have Kush, but leave Egypt alone!" - that's what's implied; and Kush is used here as a euphemism for Blacks - ie, "Tiye was a Kushite"...
The history of Kush, Meroe, etc. should certainly be researched and taught, but only in the context of it's existence as part of the ancient Nile Valley Civilization. We cannot continue to allow this "African apartheid" presentation of African history; some of us need to become more sophisticated in judging these matters.
quote: rasol said it better in commenting on a book about "The Kushites"
In other words Kush in this book is neither a nation, a culture, or a people, but rather an artificial and implicitly racial construct created by Europeans to 'assign' Africans to a sealed off corner in the history of the Nile Valley.
I concur with Wally and refuse to play the 'dupe' for Eurocentric pablum which distorts AFrican history.
It seems the book you cited essentially LIES about history. If so, it need be called out as such, does not not?
If you disagree, please tell us what aspect of the above assessment is objectionable to you. and why? Be specific. Thanks.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
have you read the article rasol?,what else do you disagee about it?,tell me besides what the name should be called. The overall article is correct,with some flaws that is what i said just like most books on this subject so far and other topics have flaws as well,and no i am not hiding behind the flaws ,it is a fact that some are out there and i do at times point them out,you are giving me a headache BECAUSE i have to keep repeating to you to focus on the main issue and you must stop complaining to me.
The study plan is a good start for someone who is starting to learn about this region and there are books that you or anyone could read below inside the article for further readings,so i do not know what else you want. if you do not like the study plan fine,i mostly like it that's why i post it.THE OTHER POST CALLED THE ANCIENT kushites is a book i am about to read but so far it looks like a good read overall even if i pointed out one or two or three flaws so far of the book but i might be wrong and there might be more or the ones i mention might be corrected later in the book because i read only some of it and i will read the rest this week.The other flaw i have not mention(i think for example the king and queen should have been shown darker like some other pictures i have seen and maybe they are in the book because one could say that the light on them makes them look little brighter on the cover for instance from the sun or the way the book cover is shown on the computer on both even if they are still shown having a dark skin tone,but if not shown different other wise in this book at least they are shown to be black and so i will let that mostly slide to a certain extent and hopefully a new book will come out showing more of thier true skin tones anyway like some other books in the past and if this book shows the art of nubia/kush than a more true skin tone will be shown anyway in most cases since their are to a certain extent could be idealized too put not as much as most of early egypt's art and in other cases not as much or at all, i will read the whole thing soon and look at the pictures to find out.
look if we agree on 100% on everything than like the former mayor of new york said,one of us would have to go to a mental hospital. look this will be my last word on this subject because it's not going anywhere.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:have you read the article rasol?,what else do you disagee about it?
Yes I have and it is nothing but ill-informed garbage, and insulting to Africans and all peoples of intelligence.
It does nothing but repeat the racist idea that Blacks are separate from Km.t, but does so with condsecension that even a small child should be able to see thru.
quote:The overall article is correct
Then you should be able to produce proof that Queen Tiye was a Kushite.
quote:The study plan is a good start
No it isn't. It's a bad start that distorts Nile Valley history, and makes it more difficult to corrrect the resultant miseducation.
You still haven't answered my questions.
quote:Wally writes: It's a lousy and deceptive lesson plan. Did you read this crap?? It's the old fake out of "You niggas can have Kush, but leave Egypt alone!" - that's what's implied; and Kush is used here as a euphemism for Blacks -
posted
last time,I said it had some flaws and needs room for improvement since i have seen better plans that do not make blacks separate from egypt,one good plan that shows the study of nubia and egypt mostly by itself and as awhole is the the book from chancellor williams the destruction of black civilization,it has some flaws too and needs some updating but it is overall a better study plan that makes sure egypt is not apart from africa but that plan is not really taught in mainstream schools that i am aware of,maybe a few schools in the u.s. who knows.
most of the study plan in the link is good if you focus on the middle nile/upper nile part of nile valley culture,but the article does hint that blacks were a major part of egypt,but if you want it to be more clear i have no problem with that and it should have been more clear that is why i have said there is room for improvement,because i do not see any other classroom study plans being taught out there now MOSTLY ABOUT THIS REGION south of egypt ALONE or mostly alone to young kids and this one could be work on.
There is a email address inside the article so you could write to the person about your concern,no need to throw the baby out with the bath water in this case,sometimes it's needed and other times it could be worked out,i chose the latter first this time,if it does not work move on and find a better plan that does not need as much improvement for studying this region.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why get upset when the flaws are pointed out?
who me? So why get upset when the flaws are pointed out? ---------------------------------------------- oh it may be the tone of your post. -----------------------------------------
I don't agree. It is very deceptive and gives a misleading picture of African history.
It is unclear *by design*. It may meet your standards, but it does not meet ours.
really this is my last time on this,your are entitled to you opinion,because i said it needs improvement,so i agree with you to a point,and disagree with the other point,and that is on the egyptian part it needs improvement but dealing with the culture and history of the region south of egypt it is mostly on target,with some things that need some improvement as well so it's a start in that department at least. write in about your concern maybe the person would listen ,it seems the writer has some good intentions and is making a point about the region south of egypt.
so it's okay if it does not meet your standards,for me i will write in and talk about these improvements,but i bet if there is improvements you still would not except it because the guy messed up to some extent from the start.
so i say to you find us a better plan and post it from any text book or website that the kids are learning from. I believe it still should be read along with more better plans THAN replace with the better one down the road,it is not a all or nothing game plan from my point of view. thank you.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the major flaws of the "lesson plan" is its timeflow. Qevs can't be properly studied in outline outside its Khartoum "mesolithic" nursery and its earliest ceramic cultures: Khartoum Variant, post-Shamarkian, Abkan.
Mollet's presentation is in three parts, the first of which is his Brief Overview. It immediately posits two questions. The second one is: Where was Kush in terms of time? He answers it with 3000 BCE A-group "Nubians" strong trading links with Egypt.
The implication is obvious.
Students miss the fact of an essentially unified Lower Nile Valley cultural complex that existed up to Naqada II/classic A-group (3000 BCE). They are left with a vague impression that Kush was not a kingdom but only a culture that began because of trade with early dynastic Egypt.
This is the kind of thinking I want to keep my own children far away from.
If you can excuse for extending this post with another point, Mollet's timeline says 12th dyansty pharaoh's gave Kush its name. This is astounding. Must my children think the people of Kush couldn't even name themselves? No! My children will have no such mis-impression because I will teach them from Hansberry (who, along with all black researchers is excluded from the select bibliography) that the word Kush/Kesh used by the Egyptians is taken from the word Qevs which is what they themselves named the greater confines of their kingdom/empire/territory.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's simple, just as both Rome and Greece are taught as Mediterranean civilizations of Europe, Kush and Egypt should be taught as Nile Valley civilizations of Africa. Both are African, Both are Nile Valley, and both are intimately related and tied to each other in many ways.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It's simple, just as both Rome and Greece are taught as Mediterranean civilizations of Europe, Kush and Egypt should be taught as Nile Valley civilizations of Africa. Both are African, Both are Nile Valley, and both are intimately related and tied to each other in many ways.
I agree. But like Rome and Greece should be taught showing their African influences, Egypt should be taight showing levantine influence among others as well.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
kenndo quote: __________________________________________________________ so i say to you find us a better plan and post it from any text book or website that the kids are learning from. I believe it still should be read along with more better plans THAN replace with the better one down the road,it is not a all or nothing game plan from my point of view. thank you. ________________________________________________________________________
As I said earlier this is a good lesson plan. Everyone who teaches social studies is not an expert on every field of study. As a result, they can only teach a subject based on the knowledge they have of a given period of history.
If we accept the fact that the content knowledge of a teacher teaching a subject varies, we would have to give the lesson plan kenno posted high marks. I believe it can help teachers to give their students a good foundation on the history of Kush, that will be a great supplement to what the average 6th Grade or High School teacher will find in their world history text about Kush.
.......
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
We are very fortunate that we have an excellent introduction to Kush through the opera Aida. You will find below the story of the opera. One way would be to read the story, spend a little time discussing what happened, and then ask some questions (see below). Some excerpts from the opera could then be played.
The following questions will lead students into a study of Kush. 1. Where did the slave girl come from? 2. Who was she and who was her father? 3. Which two countries were at war? 4. What do we know about the pharaohs in Egypt? 5. What do we know about the country referred to as Ancient Ethiopia? 6. What might Aida have looked like?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, why fuss over silly details, overall it's good.
Yes, and the house I propose to sell is a good house. After looking it over you're telling me:
- the foundation is shallow - the concrete lacks stone in its mix - the wood is #4 quality - the nails were made from a cheap alloy - the windows are plexiglass - there's no tar between the roof sheeting and the shingles;
Well, if we accept the fact that contractor skills vary we have to give the house high marks.
I will be happy to take your orders and build you a good house like that!
Huh? What's that you say? You have to pass on my offer? But why? It's such a good house compared to no house at all!
quote: As I said earlier this is a good lesson plan. ... If we accept the fact that the content knowledge of a teacher teaching a subject varies, we would have to give the lesson plan high marks.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just prepetuates more sloppy inaccurate misunderstandings of African history.
This is how we end up trying to link the Anu of Kemet to the Andaman Islanders and Ainu of Japan, and calling them all Kushites.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic