posted
I have a question regarding the Qustul incense burner, you've all heard of that right? This is specifically addressed to you supercar, since you're the most ojective and scientifically sounded guy on this board. Now, super, don't you think the argument that the Qustul burner is a egyptian import is very weak, especially in the light that the Qustul thingy is of local nubian origin? And what's this crap about an Abydos Naqada IIIA tomb being older than Qustul, IIIA goes back to only 3300 BC, while Qustul goes back to 3350-3400 B.C. Can someone please explain this nonsense? Thanks and peace.
Posts: 24 | From: hell | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, much has been gone awash under the Aswan Dam, and the Qustul incense burner happens to be one of the various items that archeologists were able to rushingly salvage. The rest of the items that would have shed even more light on Egypto-A Group relationship had been sacrificed. I personally believe that the incense was of local A-group manufacture. The argument seems more centered on significance of the incense, as opposed to where it had been manufactured.
Williams sees the incense as proof via iconography, that A-group elites invaded the lower Nile Valley neighbors, and took their kinship traditions with them. Some, while haven't disproven this possibility, claim that this interpretation itself isn't enough to explain preponderance of other archeological evidence of cultural precursors of dynastic Egypt which can be sought largely in the Nagada complexes themselves, while noting the distinctions and relationships between the Nagada complexes and the A-group, along with how these cultural elements distribute down the Nile Valley. For instance, much of hieroglyphics earliest precursors have been found in the late Nagada complex, while none has been found further up the Nile. As far as kingship is concerned, further studies on things like "actual" Royal crowns in burial sites of Nagada and A-group sites, if available, could shed some light. Keita's cranial analysis shows that Nagada specimens were virtually indistinguishable from the Kerma groups, and aside from some shared cultural origins, interactions between these "upper Egyptians" and their "Nubian" neighbors, would ensure further cultural affinities.
On that note, I've got to get going, but I'll come back to this issue.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the A-Group identification is the same problem as the artificial identity of people called "Nubians". Whatever group was represented by A-Group pottery, they were not proto-Nubians in any sense of the term, since Nubia was NOT a country, ethnic group or tribe known throughout MOST of Egypt's history. Therefore, there is a FAKE continuity of people and history proposed by lumping the cultural artifacts of the A-Group with later artifacts and later populations on the upper Nile. It is all part of creating a PHONY separate but somewhat unequal parallel development pattern for "black" Africans, that can be used as a buffer between Africa and Egypt. Therefore, "black" Africans become related to this phony "Nubian" cultural continuity, whereas Egypt is relegated to a separate complex, as if the TWO GROUPS werent very close physically and culturally to begin with. There WAS NO NUBIA in predynastic to dynastic Egypt. Nubia was a term coined by FOREIGNERS who decided to use the ancient Egyptians term for Gold to describe the populations south of Egypt. In fact that statement extends to people in Egypt itself, since the early protodynastic state had WHOLE CITIES dedicated to the trade of gold and the worship of "golden ones", the gods. But of course, that FACT gets lost in creating this PHONY Nubian empire to use as a ephamism for black African civilization. A-Group people were just ONE of the many communities on the upper Nile including those that eventually merged and became Egypt. The state of affairs in predynastic times was quite similar to the state of affairs in the preHellenic Agean. Many different city states were vying with each other for power. Therefore, there were "A-Group" settlements, Naquadan settlements and other settlements all over the Nile and sometime open conflict between these groups.
Since the A-Group never MERGED with any other groups or formed any country or civilization called Nubia, it therefore makes no sense to call it "Nubian". Further to the south there were other city states who DID merge and form the civilization of Kerma and Meroe. These groups were much farther south than the A-Groups, and there was no cultural continuity from one to the other. However, many Egyptologists STILL lump all these people together as "Nubians". In fact if anything, the A-Group merged with those people who became dynastic Egypt. This is seen in the fact that there is no B-Group, since there is a gap in the archaeological record where there are no UNIQUE artifacts found matching previous A-Group. Once again, this is overlooked and a FAKE continuity is FURTHER reinforced by the creation of the C-Group. The funny thing is that this C-Group is different from the A-Group, yet it is still LINKED with the A-Group as some CONTINUATION of A-Group culture. Why? There WAS no country or civilization called Nubia in predynastic/dynastic times so HOW can these be linked as a "Nubian" civilization? The answer is that they CANT. Likewise, Kerma and Meroe are also NOT part of the C-Group cultural complex, yet they are LUMPED together as part of this ARTIFICIAL Nubian civilization which NEVER existed.
Bottom line the A-Group and C-Group peoples were populations that became PART of Egypt itself. They were NOT Nubian since there was NO SUCH THING at the time. Nubian is NOT an actual ethnic, cultural or racially valid term, since it is really only the ARBITRARY association of DIFFERENT cultures and peoples based on being in the South of Egypt, not because they ORIGINALLY identified themselves as such.
A-Group and C-Group peoples are the people that ASSISTED Egypt in the times of crisis caused by foreign invasions. Yet historians STILL are CONFUSED because they have BUILT UP this whole FALSE identity of people to the immediate South of Egypt as being "Nubians" and different from Egyptians, that they cant see what is RIGHT IN FRONT of them. The upper Egyptians and A-Group and C-Group peoples were NEARLY the same people with a SHARED history and culture. THAT is why they assisted Egypt in times of trouble.
If you dont believe me, look at what the oriental institute says about Qustul the A-Group, the C-Group and Nubia. You can SEE the contradictions clearly in these passages. First they say the A-Group were the people of the Land of The Bow. Well DUHHH that is the FIRST NOME OF EGYPT!! Those ARE Egyptians!!!! But of course they MUST keep these people separate so they arent just called Egyptians and you have this whole FAKE shock and awe about how CLOSELY these people interacted! Well, of course they were close, they were the SAME PEOPLE!!! Then they say that these people COULD have been the founding dynasty in Egypt. Sorry, THEY WERE the founding dynasty in Egypt, PERIOD. There is NO GUESSWORK required for this. The FIRST Nome in Egypt, the NOme of the FOUNDERS is called TA SETI and one of its PRINCIPLE towns was a place called NUBT or "the GOLDEN CITY". Hence these are the TRUE NUBIANS, who were in all reality REALLY EGYPTIANS. But of course this causes a great conundrum since they have been attributed to this "Nubian" civilization that NEVER existed except in the MINDS of European Egyptologists who CREATED Nubia as a way to separate "black" Africa from Egypt.
Next they talk about the C-Group, since the A-Group "dissapeared", well not really they just became the Egyptians and therefore their cultural traits and those of the Egyptians were identical, meaning they wouldnt leave any separate artifacts indicating a continuity between themselves and the C-Group. Even, here they themselves ADMIT that there is no relation between A-Group and C-Group, but STILL persist in CREATING ONE by calling them BOTH Nubians..... Talk about contradicting yourself. These "Nubians" are the principle force BEHIND the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom, kindoms of NATIVE dynasties that arose in RESPONSE to the Asiatic incursions. Note how these people call these periods OCCUPATIONS. There was no OCCUPATION, these people were COOPERATING to drive out the Asiatics. Note also how the Medjay, some of Egypt's fiercest and most loyal soldiers, went on to assist in the development of Kerma civilization, see a pattern of ties there?
Suffice to say, you see where I am going. Much of the SO CALLED history of "Nubia" is a MANUFACTURED reality based on ARBITRARY facts that have NOTHING to do with the TRUE relation of Egypt to its southern neighbors.
Read this page and look at how CONFUSED and CONTRADICTORY it is. It stresses DISTINCTIONS to the point of CONTRADICTING itself. Thus you see why using terms like A-Group, C-Group and Nubian are UTTERLY useless in understanding Egypt's orgins in the south and its relations to its neighbors there:
It is funny how Egyptologists stress TIES between Egyptians and Asiatics, when these people were most often OPENLY HOSTILE with one another, but YET DOWNPLAY the relations between Egypt and people to the South, people who showed the CLOSEST relationship to Egypt of anyone.....
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very good post. AE when understood from the appropriate african prospective taking into account the correct relationship she had with her african sisters and that which she had with asiatic makes complete sense and all of the so call mysteries disappear!
Great Post!
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem with the A-Group identification is the same problem as the artificial identity of people called "Nubians". Whatever group was represented by A-Group pottery, they were not proto-Nubians in any sense of the term, since Nubia was NOT a country, ethnic group or tribe known throughout MOST of Egypt's history. Therefore, there is a FAKE continuity of people and history proposed by lumping the cultural artifacts of the A-Group with later artifacts and later populations on the upper Nile. It is all part of creating a PHONY separate but somewhat unequal parallel development pattern for "black" Africans, that can be used as a buffer between Africa and Egypt. Therefore, "black" Africans become related to this phony "Nubian" cultural continuity, whereas Egypt is relegated to a separate complex, as if the TWO GROUPS werent very close physically and culturally to begin with. There WAS NO NUBIA in predynastic to dynastic Egypt. Nubia was a term coined by FOREIGNERS who decided to use the ancient Egyptians term for Gold to describe the populations south of Egypt. In fact that statement extends to people in Egypt itself, since the early protodynastic state had WHOLE CITIES dedicated to the trade of gold and the worship of "golden ones", the gods. But of course, that FACT gets lost in creating this PHONY Nubian empire to use as a ephamism for black African civilization. A-Group people were just ONE of the many communities on the upper Nile including those that eventually merged and became Egypt. The state of affairs in predynastic times was quite similar to the state of affairs in the preHellenic Agean. Many different city states were vying with each other for power. Therefore, there were "A-Group" settlements, Naquadan settlements and other settlements all over the Nile and sometime open conflict between these groups.
Since the A-Group never MERGED with any other groups or formed any country or civilization called Nubia, it therefore makes no sense to call it "Nubian". Further to the south there were other city states who DID merge and form the civilization of Kerma and Meroe. These groups were much farther south than the A-Groups, and there was no cultural continuity from one to the other. However, many Egyptologists STILL lump all these people together as "Nubians". In fact if anything, the A-Group merged with those people who became dynastic Egypt. This is seen in the fact that there is no B-Group, since there is a gap in the archaeological record where there are no UNIQUE artifacts found matching previous A-Group. Once again, this is overlooked and a FAKE continuity is FURTHER reinforced by the creation of the C-Group. The funny thing is that this C-Group is different from the A-Group, yet it is still LINKED with the A-Group as some CONTINUATION of A-Group culture. Why? There WAS no country or civilization called Nubia in predynastic/dynastic times so HOW can these be linked as a "Nubian" civilization? The answer is that they CANT. Likewise, Kerma and Meroe are also NOT part of the C-Group cultural complex, yet they are LUMPED together as part of this ARTIFICIAL Nubian civilization which NEVER existed.
Bottom line the A-Group and C-Group peoples were populations that became PART of Egypt itself. They were NOT Nubian since there was NO SUCH THING at the time. Nubian is NOT an actual ethnic, cultural or racially valid term, since it is really only the ARBITRARY association of DIFFERENT cultures and peoples based on being in the South of Egypt, not because they ORIGINALLY identified themselves as such.
A-Group and C-Group peoples are the people that ASSISTED Egypt in the times of crisis caused by foreign invasions. Yet historians STILL are CONFUSED because they have BUILT UP this whole FALSE identity of people to the immediate South of Egypt as being "Nubians" and different from Egyptians, that they cant see what is RIGHT IN FRONT of them. The upper Egyptians and A-Group and C-Group peoples were NEARLY the same people with a SHARED history and culture. THAT is why they assisted Egypt in times of trouble.
If you dont believe me, look at what the oriental institute says about Qustul the A-Group, the C-Group and Nubia. You can SEE the contradictions clearly in these passages. First they say the A-Group were the people of the Land of The Bow. Well DUHHH that is the FIRST NOME OF EGYPT!! Those ARE Egyptians!!!! But of course they MUST keep these people separate so they arent just called Egyptians and you have this whole FAKE shock and awe about how CLOSELY these people interacted! Well, of course they were close, they were the SAME PEOPLE!!! Then they say that these people COULD have been the founding dynasty in Egypt. Sorry, THEY WERE the founding dynasty in Egypt, PERIOD. There is NO GUESSWORK required for this. The FIRST Nome in Egypt, the NOme of the FOUNDERS is called TA SETI and one of its PRINCIPLE towns was a place called NUBT or "the GOLDEN CITY". Hence these are the TRUE NUBIANS, who were in all reality REALLY EGYPTIANS. But of course this causes a great conundrum since they have been attributed to this "Nubian" civilization that NEVER existed except in the MINDS of European Egyptologists who CREATED Nubia as a way to separate "black" Africa from Egypt.
Next they talk about the C-Group, since the A-Group "dissapeared", well not really they just became the Egyptians and therefore their cultural traits and those of the Egyptians were identical, meaning they wouldnt leave any separate artifacts indicating a continuity between themselves and the C-Group. Even, here they themselves ADMIT that there is no relation between A-Group and C-Group, but STILL persist in CREATING ONE by calling them BOTH Nubians..... Talk about contradicting yourself. These "Nubians" are the principle force BEHIND the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom, kindoms of NATIVE dynasties that arose in RESPONSE to the Asiatic incursions. Note how these people call these periods OCCUPATIONS. There was no OCCUPATION, these people were COOPERATING to drive out the Asiatics. Note also how the Medjay, some of Egypt's fiercest and most loyal soldiers, went on to assist in the development of Kerma civilization, see a pattern of ties there?
Suffice to say, you see where I am going. Much of the SO CALLED history of "Nubia" is a MANUFACTURED reality based on ARBITRARY facts that have NOTHING to do with the TRUE relation of Egypt to its southern neighbors.
Read this page and look at how CONFUSED and CONTRADICTORY it is. It stresses DISTINCTIONS to the point of CONTRADICTING itself. Thus you see why using terms like A-Group, C-Group and Nubian are UTTERLY useless in understanding Egypt's orgins in the south and its relations to its neighbors there:
It is funny how Egyptologists stress TIES between Egyptians and Asiatics, when these people were most often OPENLY HOSTILE with one another, but YET DOWNPLAY the relations between Egypt and people to the South, people who showed the CLOSEST relationship to Egypt of anyone.....
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
J-Dog, I didn't have much time earlier, but I'll try to give you direct answers for the questions you posed herein.
quote:Originally posted by J-Dog:
Now, super, don't you think the argument that the Qustul burner is a egyptian import is very weak, especially in the light that the Qustul thingy is of local nubian origin?
Indeed, one of the most strong points of Bruce Williams interpretation of the incense, because the iconography of a pharaoh-like figure, along with Horus, which are all things associated with dynastic Egypt, happen to be found in the "A-group" Cemetery, and a very rich one at that. If “Egyptians” imported the incense from further up the Nile via the “A-group”, modified it, and then exported this artifact to back to the A-group, would it make sense:
a) for the “Egyptians” to mark the product with local iconography sporting Egyptian patriotism to another polity (?) - it would almost be like the Japanese exporting vehicles to the U.S. with bumper stickers of the Japanese flag on the exports.
On the other hand, if the product was modified in Egypt, and didn't find its way back to the "A-group" as a traded item, but as a gift from the Nagada ruler to the A-group ruler, as a show of solid ties at the height of close trade relationships between the groups, then show of Egyptian patriotism wouldn't be entirely inconceivable. But then, begs the question, who are supposed to be the fallen "captives" in an iconography that may well be a "symbolic" gesture to the greatness of the "Nagada" ruler [if presumed as such], and not necessarily a depiction of an actual battle? Is it conceivable that the Nagada ruler would send as a gift to the A-group ruler, an item that reflects the defeat of the latter's people (s) - that would be rather bizarre. But let's take a careful look at this incense:
Image #1:
Image #2:
I can't help but notice that [in image #2], it appears that, some of the figure drawn on this repro reflect the imagination/prediction of the artist, as to how the image might have proceeded in the missing pieces. If we look closely, the actual shapes of the incense pieces are outlined. From what I can tell, and I am not saying this with any degree of certainty barring an actual photo of the incense, is that what appears to be the body of the Pharaoh-like figure, is but the prediction of the artist, while the crown bit -minus the “Pharaoh’s head”, along with portions of the bird, are the actual depictions on the incense piece that was recovered. Portions of a boat-like platform on which the Pharaoh-like figure is seated, appears on another piece to the left, and another piece to the right. That piece on the right, appears to have the lower portions of the man "tying" a "captive", and the "captive" himself - minus their heads, which appear to be the prediction of the repro artist. Portions of another boat-like figure on which both the “captive-taker” and the “captive” mounted, appears on that same piece. The remaining portion of the boat-like figure appears on yet another piece to its right, whereby the remainder of the figure is the artist’s prediction. Still to the far right, is another piece, which sports some “semi-rectangular like” or “entrance-like” structures [for lack of a better term ], the remainders of which, also appear to be the repro artists’ prediction. To the far left, what appears to be the largest piece of all the puzzle put together, we have complete images of a “lion-like” (?) creature mounted on yet another boat-like structure, a bird (parrot ?) mounted on a bird pole, an man watching the animals, and then an antelope-like animal with a portion its head missing in the “chipped” off portion, followed by what appears to be a weapon [perhaps for hunting?] - the remaining portion of that aforementioned boat-like structure on which the Pharaoh-like figure is supposed to be mounted on, plus a plant, can be seen to the right end of that large piece. Based on this, could this item be said to have been a gift from the Nagada ruler to the A-group ruler? On another hand, if the incense was a symbolic depiction an “A-group” ruler, with regards to his “greatness”, then there is less to explain about this.
b) that “Nagada” iconography on the incense, would be inline with other “hieroglyphic” precursors recovered in Nagada sites, but none else found the “A-group” sites or still further up the Nile, dating back to the era in question?
c) was this incense accommodated by other “Nagada” items?
This is what the “Nubianet.org” sites states about this:
In 1962, at a place called Qustul, about 180 miles (300 km) upriver from Aswan, a University of Chicago team, under the direction of Dr. Keith Seele, discovered a series of plundered, but still **unusually** rich, tombs containing massive quantities of **Egyptian** trade goods and luxury items..
I take the term “Egyptian” to imply the “Nagada”.
Nubianet.org goes onto to state:
In the early 1980's, when he first examined the material prior to its final publication, Prehistorian Bruce B. Williams theorized that the tombs may have belonged to a dynasty of ten to twelve A-Group kings and that, like Upper and Lower Egypt at about the same time, Lower Nubia may also have developed a strong centralized authority. Two of the objects found in the tombs were sandstone incense burners, made of local stone, carved in intaglio with scenes that seemed to show ancient Egyptian kings, dressed in traditional tall crown (signifying rule over the south) and protected by the falcon god Horus. What made Williams' theory so controversial was that he proposed that the objects did not show early Egyptian kings but rather A-Group kings, and that the objects - and the A-Group kingship - were earlier by at least two centuries than the Egyptian kingship of the same form. He went on to suggest that this hypothetical Nubian kingship became the model for the later Egyptian. argument was quickly seized by American Afrocentrists as proof that Egyptian-style kingship was not home-grown but was imported from central Africa, and that the report by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus in the first century BC that Egyptian civilization had derived from Nubia ("Aithiopia") was confirmed.
And as one of the arguments against an “A-group” finish to an incense that seems to be of “southern” origins, according to Nubianet.org is this:
While Williams' theory was intriguing, it could never be proven or disproven absolutely because shortly after the clearing of the tombs all of Qustul had been flooded forever by the Aswan Dam and could not be reinvestigated.
Given the large numbers of imported Egyptian goods in the tombs, one could also never be certain if the incense burners, too, were not simply Egyptian imports rather than Nubian products, as most would have assumed them to be.
While the fact of the incense being made of “local” A-group (?) stone kicks in:
The fact that they were made of local stone seemed to confirm that they were Nubian, and many other objects and pottery vessels seemed to have a Sudanese origin.
quote:J-Dog: And what's this crap about an Abydos Naqada IIIA tomb being older than Qustul, IIIA goes back to only 3300 BC, while Qustul goes back to 3350-3400 B.C. Can someone please explain this nonsense?
Well, this is what the Nubianet.org site had to say about this:
Williams' characterization of the tombs as belonging to a time "prior to any known Egyptian kingship" now has to be modified by the recent discovery at Abydos in Egypt of Egyptian royal artifacts that do indeed seem to reach back as far as the Qustul tombs (about 3400 BC).
I suspect this has to do with “hieroglyphic” characters recently discovered by Dreyer in upper Egypt, dating back to about the same time frame. This would be in addition to even earlier pictographs, also found in the Nagada sites. I posted info on this elsewhere:
I believe it would be a mistake to think that the “A-group” didn’t have a separate polity from the “Nagada” groups during the proto-dynastic era. The “A-group”, it would appear, did have a polity of their own, prior to their mysterious “disappearance”. Again from Nubianet.org:
A-Group remains are quite distinct from those of contemporary Egypt, so there is good reason to suspect that the people differed from the Egyptians politically, linguistically and culturally, and perhaps ethnically.
Whatever the authors mean by “ethnically”, what we know from biological data, is biological continuity in the region:
Recalling Keita, on centroid values of cranial series:
"Badarian (8) occupies a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series by centroid values and territorial maps. The Nagada and the Kerma series are so similar that they are barely INDISTINGUISHABLE in the territorial maps; they subsume the first dynasty series in Abydos… The Badarian crania have a modal metric phenotype that is clearly “southern”; most classify into the Kerma (Nubian), Gaboon, and Kenyan groups…No Badarian cranium in any analysis classified into the European series, and few grouped with the “E” series…Nutter (1958) found that they [the Nagada] are essentially identical to the Badarian series. The classification of crania into specific groups does NOT imply identity with those specific series, only AFFINITIES with broad patterns connoting COMMON ORIGINS..."
Nubianet goes on:
Their unmistakable objects have been found well distributed throughout Lower Nubia, from the Second Cataract north to Aswan, and a few of their objects have been found at Hierakonpolis, site of the earliest Egyptian capital in Upper Egypt. Although a few small and rather poor looking settlement sites were identified before the region was flooded forever by the Aswan High Dam, the A-Group people are known primarily from their much more prosperous looking cemeteries. Laid in pits beneath small mounds, the dead were arranged flexed, facing west. Obviously they had a strong belief in the afterlife, for the bodies were accompanied by elegant thin-walled painted pottery of their own manufacture, polished stone palettes for grinding eye cosmetics, mica mirrors, as well as a variety of luxury items imported from Egypt.
[I]These included food jars, linen for clothing, copper tools, and small ornaments. Since Lower Nubia, agriculturally, was a poor land, and since at that time it had no recognized natural resources (gold being discovered somewhat later), we must wonder how there came to be so much Egyptian material in these graves. ** Oddly, very few A-Group products have ever been found in Egypt.**
It seems most likely that these people purchased their Egyptian goods directly from Egyptian river traders by using as barter raw materials they had obtained from further south in the Sudan. On the other hand, they might also have received their Egyptian goods from Egyptian shippers as tolls in exchange for allowing the Egyptians safe passage to Upper Nubia. In any case, about 3200 B.C. the A-Group people seem to have been middle-men in an ever increasing trade in exotic raw materials flowing between Egypt and the distant south…
For unknown reasons, perhaps in dispute with the A-Group rulers over commodity prices or control of trade routes, or in rivalry for empire, the earliest Egyptian pharaohs, as recorded in their brief inscriptions, seem to have been determined to conquer the "Land of the Bow." At least five Egyptian military campaigns into Lower Nubia are recorded between 3100 and 2500 BC. A text of the Fourth Dynasty king Sneferu (ca. 2575-2555 B.C.), for example, reports that the Egyptians carried away from Nubia seven thousand captives and 200,000 head of cattle. These conquests ultimately had the effect of eradicating all traces of the A-Group - at least in the archaaeological record - suggesting either that a large Nubian population went to Egypt, or that it was assimilated, or that it was driven some distance away from the river into the desert grasslands. This allowed the Egyptians to move into the area tentatively and to establish small fortified settlements at strategic points. One of these settlements was located at Buhen, at the approach to the Second Cataract, which was ideally situated as a trading station where Egyptian shippers from Aswan could meet Nubian merchants from the deep south and barter their goods directly with them.
quote:Originally posted by Keins: Very good post. AE when understood from the appropriate african prospective taking into account the correct relationship she had with her african sisters and that which she had with asiatic makes complete sense and all of the so call mysteries disappear!
Great Post!
Agreed. There is no logic or rationale beyound contrived political bias - in trying to reassign that which is of Qustal to further North in the Nile Valley.
There is no more evidence to be found for this, than in trying to move Naqada to Mesopotamia, or Punt to Lebanon.
The Nubianologist websites quoted are good sources of info, but be wary of them - they have their own agenda and certain facts they attempt to surpress or obscure.
* there is no kingdom of Nubia or people called nubians in ancient [dyanstic era] history.
* the word Nubia is Kemetic - ie Ancient Egyptian, and it refers to parts of km.t - Egypt.
* the oldest known reference to Nubia is to a city in "Naqada" - Nub.t.
* Naqada - is and Arab word.
* Egypt is a Greek name for Kemet.
* Nub.t is a part of Km.t.
Nubianologist [could] choose to bring the above facts to light.
Instead they choose to keep spinning peoples heads, and playing into the same old Eurocentric ruse - they invent a Nubia that is separate from Egypty, condescend about Nubia's African authenticity [thus baiting naive Africanist], and then proceed to move the critical evidence found in "their own false construct of nubia", out of nubia, and *into* their false construct of egypt.
And that is what this thread is really about.
I give Nubianologist credit though for doing much damage, which is difficult to repair. Give the devil his due. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
That page is FULL of the same CONTRADICTIONS and inconsistencies that I pointed out on the web page from the Oriental Insitute. The MAIN problem being that there was NEVER a country, land, people or civilization called NUBIA to begin with. What they call NUBIA is an ARBITRARY association of people based PURELY on their location to the South of Egypt. This IDENTITY of Nubia is FAKE and has NO BEARING on the true relationship of the predynastic peoples to other groups in the South. Like I said, the A-Group, C-Group, Kerma and MEroe were NEVER part of the SAME culture or civilization called NUBIA. Therefore terms like Upper Nubia, Lower Nubia, etc are COMPLETELY a manufactured identity, meant more to confuse and DISTORT the facts than bring any greater understanding.
Therefore, when LOOKING at such finds, you have to realize the if the PURPOSE is to create a DISTINCT and SEPARATE identity for people SOUTH of Egypt, then the facts will be DISTORTED to support that pre-conceived notion and biased point of view. Therefore, you have to strip out the NUBIAN propaganda and look at the facts from a DIFFERENT point of view. THe A-Group, C-Group and others were part of the SAME entities that eventually merged and FORMED dynastic Egypt. The FIRST NOME of Egypt was called Ta-Seti from PREDYNASTIC times. This is NOT In HOMAGE to some OTHER group, it is a REFLECTION of the fact that that other group, the A-Group was ALWAYS part of Egypt itself. If the A-Group had extensive and rich burial sites PRIOR to those in Naquada, then that TOO shows you that what became Dynastic Egyptian culture also reflects a MERGING with this group. ONLY if you are trying to reinforce and maintain a PHONY identity of Nubia do you get the contradictions that are so blatantly obvious in these references. Trying to separate the A-Group and Ta Seti from Egypt is like trying to separate Plymouth Rock from America, it makes NO sense.
Here are some other pages that show the OBVIOUS contradictions in the theories about the relationship between the A-Group and Dynastic Egypt: http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/nubian.html Note that here they try to come to grips with the relationship of the A-Group and other predynastic people:
quote: A possible explanation for this is that A-Group society was so similar to that in predynastic Upper Egypt that there was a kind of equilibrium between them. These Nubian people were not living in the shade of the predynastic Egyptians, nor were they subservient to them in a colonial way. They had no need to leave their home in order to find food or employment in the big city. Given the growing desire for exotic goods like the obsidian from the temple, A-Group Nubians likely came to Egypt for transactions!
How about they were the SAME people? Why is that so hard to say? The problem is in her BRAIN in trying to force a FALSE dichotomy between a NON EXISTANT entity, Nubia, and Pre-Dynastic Egypt.
http://touregypt.net/historicalessays/nubiae1.htm This site claims that Nubia was a "country". Country HOW? What was its capital and when was it founded and by who? There was NEVER a country called NUBIA. But of course they are FORCING this separation by CREATING this idea of NUBIA as a country almost like Egypt was a country when NUBIA NEVER existed. They even say that THEMSELVES, that there were mainly separate groups in the area and that the main civilization to arise was that of Kush, but that these were SEPARATE entities who did not identify themselves together as part of some COUNTRY/CIVILIZATION called NUBIA.
I suggest you STOP looking at the NONSENSE that is written about Ta-Seti and the A-Group, because it MAKES NO SENSE from ANY perspective.
My bottom line opinion is that Ta-Seti (or the A-Group) was one of the city states that existed along the Nile along with those at Naquada, Nekhen and Abydos. Ta-Seti was Ta-Seti and not part of Nubia, since Nubia did NOT exist as a country, civilization, culture or ANYTHING else. Therefore, in the beginning of dynastic history, Ta-Seti was to merge with the other city states and form early dynastic Egypt. All the association with Ta-Seti and Nubia is NONSENSE because the border of Egypt was to the SOUTH of Ta Seti in the early dynastic period. Many of the "Nubian" campains in the Middle Kindom were to the SOUTH of Ta-Seti/Qustul. Therefore, all of this NONSENSE making Ta-Seti equivalent and the same as other groups further south is just that... NONSENSE. Ta-Seti is the home of your A-Group, pharoanic kingship AND royal burials, period.
There is more here about Ta-Seti/Qustul and the incense burner:
While I respect Mr. Raffaele's work as being generally honest, I do think he is STUCK on dogma concerning the relationship of Ta-Seti to predynastic Egypt. He himself states that there are MANY proto-egyptian style glyphs found in the A-Group cemetaries. Especially the pharoanic glyph found in front of the symbol for Ta-Seti. THAT says everything you need to see right there: Ta-Seti had the EARLIEST pharoanic style ruling elite PRIOR to that in Abydos OR Naquada... but of course no one wants to admit that Ta-Seti and the A-Group are PART of Egypt from the beginning, since they are STUCK on the dogma of keeping NUBIA, a NON-Existent entity SEPARATE from Egypt. The explanation they give is that the Egyptians NAMED the first Nome in HOMAGE to the people from Ta-Seti. MY explanation is that this is pure B.S. , intended to distract people from the obvious fact that the people of the A-Group/Ta-Seti MERGED and were the SAME people as the other peoples that FORMED dynastic Egypt. They didnt dissapear, they weren't WIPED OUT (or else why name a nome after a defeated group?). The evidence ITSELF says this but Egyptologists CANT accept it and therefore make Qustul an enigma and mystery when in reality there IS none.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
That page is FULL of the same CONTRADICTIONS and inconsistencies that I pointed out on the web page from the Oriental Insitute. The MAIN problem being that there was NEVER a country, land, people or civilization called NUBIA to begin with.
Okay?...Tell me something I don't already know!
quote:Doug M: The FIRST NOME of Egypt was called Ta-Seti from PREDYNASTIC times.
Where can I find a predynastic text the mentions such?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nubt/Naquada is the 5th nome of Egypt. The FIRST nome is Ta-Seti, Land of the Archers (bowmen), Ta-Khent (land of the founders).
Note how they skip over 4 nomes including the "Plymouth Rock" of Egypt, the FIRST nome in order to focus on Naquada which is the 5th nome? I also find it odd how they mangle the name of the first nome. Ta-Khentit SHOULD be Ta-Khent, land of the founders, beginning and Land of the Archers should read Land of the Bow. Those two things right THERE show you the relation of the Ta-Seti A-Group to the rest of Egypt.
Also note how the red crown, white crown and was scepter ALL originated here in Upper Egypt.
That page is FULL of the same CONTRADICTIONS and inconsistencies that I pointed out on the web page from the Oriental Insitute. The MAIN problem being that there was NEVER a country, land, people or civilization called NUBIA to begin with.
Okay?...Tell me something I don't already know!
quote:Doug M: The FIRST NOME of Egypt was called Ta-Seti from PREDYNASTIC times.
Where can I find a predynastic text the mentions such?
Calm down man. Ta Seti is the A-Group the predynastic culture found in Uppper Egypt and that is the name they used for themselves. Therefore Ta-Seti existed PRIOR to a Dynastic Egypt and the FACT that the First nome is named Ta-Seti and Ta-Khent attests to this fact. The point is that Egyplologists downplay this fact and go to great lengths to remove the A-Group/Ta-Seti FROM their proper place in Egyptian history by using Nubia as some kind of divider that separates the two, when Nubia NEVER existed. Bottom line, all the evidence from Qustul and that submerged under the Lake Nasser confirms what the Egyptians themselves say and the evidence points to, that many aspects of what became dynastic Egyptian culture came from Ta Seti. I was not arguing with YOU, I was just pointing out that you have to READ BETWEEN THE LINES on these pages concerning the A-Group and dynastic Egypt. These pages are pushing so much propaganda in inserting a FAKE entity called Nubia into the mix as if it has ANYTHING to do with the A-Group, Naquada or Abdydos and early dynastic Egypt. That's all I was trying to point out.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is NOT In HOMAGE to some OTHER group, it is a REFLECTION of the fact that that other group, the A-Group was ALWAYS part of Egypt itself.
First, Egypt was not always a unified nation, so to speak of it as such, is misleading. You can't have the A-group a part of something that didn't always exist.
Secondly, are you implying that either the "Nagada" complex was always part of the "A-group" polity in predynastic times, OR, are you implying that the "A-group" was always part of the "Nagada" complex? If so, what evidence is there for such?
quote:Doug M:
Trying to separate the A-Group and Ta Seti from Egypt is like trying to separate Plymouth Rock from America, it makes NO sense.
You, yourself, is guilty of the very same contradictions that you accuse others of. You keep saying "Egypt" as if it were always a unified single nation.
Of course, by the old kingdom, Ta-Seti was part of the "unified" Egyptian state. The processes of this does indeed appear to have taken place in the predynastic times, but to state that the "A-group" had no separate polity of their own, and were one and same with the "Nagada" groups, would require substantiation.
quote:Doug M: This site claims that Nubia was a "country". Country HOW? What was its capital and when was it founded and by who? There was NEVER a country called NUBIA...
I suggest you STOP looking at the NONSENSE that is written about Ta-Seti and the A-Group, because it MAKES NO SENSE from ANY perspective.
Doug, my friend, if you'll only take the time to search the archives, you'll have noticed that I've been saying this repetitively even before you've ever joined this board. So, I am not sure what your issue is here?
quote:Doug M: There is more here about Ta-Seti/Qustul and the incense burner:
While I respect Mr. Raffaele's work as being generally honest, I do think he is STUCK on dogma concerning the relationship of Ta-Seti to predynastic Egypt. He himself states that there are MANY proto-egyptian style glyphs found in the A-Group cemetaries.
...which would be besides the two aforemention incense, and dating to about the same period or earlier?
quote:Doug M:
Especially the pharoanic glyph found in front of the symbol for Ta-Seti. THAT says everything you need to see right there: Ta-Seti had the EARLIEST pharoanic style ruling elite PRIOR to that in Abydos OR Naquada... but of course no one wants to admit that Ta-Seti and the A-Group are PART of Egypt from the beginning
How do you define "from the beginning" here?
quote:Doug M:
, since they are STUCK on the dogma of keeping NUBIA, a NON-Existent entity SEPARATE from Egypt. The explanation they give is that the Egyptians NAMED the first Nome in HOMAGE to the people from Ta-Seti. MY explanation is that this is pure B.S. , intended to distract people from the obvious fact that the people of the A-Group/Ta-Seti MERGED and were the SAME people as the other peoples that FORMED dynastic Egypt.
Certainly became part of the unified Egyptian nation by the old Kingdom.
quote: Doug M:
They didnt dissapear, they weren't WIPED OUT (or else why name a nome after a defeated group?). The evidence ITSELF says this but Egyptologists CANT accept it and therefore make Qustul an enigma and mystery when in reality there IS none.
Perhaps, but please remember what the topic author had asked for, and that is what I intended to deliver. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't recall anything in my comment, that suggests anything of panic. - just simple questions for clarifications.
quote:Doug M:
I was not arguing with YOU, I was just pointing out that you have to READ BETWEEN THE LINES on these pages concerning the A-Group and dynastic Egypt.
But why are you telling me this? This is why I have suggested you go through the archives, to realize that you are not bringing news to me here. Newbies come here, and then, act like they are reciting something new.
quote:Doug M: These pages are pushing so much propaganda in inserting a FAKE entity called Nubia into the mix as if it has ANYTHING to do with the A-Group, Naquada or Abdydos and early dynastic Egypt. That's all I was trying to point out.
Well, Doug, I'm glad you've shown that you understand the "Nubian" thing, and its problem, as some us already have long acknowledged here. Cheers.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug writes: Ta-Seti had the EARLIEST pharoanic style ruling elite PRIOR to that in Abydos OR Naquada... but of course no one wants to admit that Ta-Seti and the A-Group are PART of Egypt from the beginning, since they are STUCK on the dogma of keeping NUBIA, a NON-Existent entity SEPARATE from Egypt.
The explanation they give is that the Egyptians NAMED the first Nome in HOMAGE to the people from Ta-Seti.
In order to understand why Eurocentrists even bother proferring lies that would seem on the surface to be mind-numbingly stupid
[Ta Khent named in 'homage' to nubians, km.t = the black dirt, other howlers] - we must 1st understand the principals of propaganda:
In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. - Winston Churchill.
The concept of strategic disinformation fully developed during the conflict, and was practiced numerous times, from Normandy to the invasion of Sicily.
The idea was this: plant false information that would be picked up by the enemy, who would then be fooled into believing it, and act in a manner that would be disadvantageous to him.
In order to protect the truth, you would need to surround it with lies - Winston Churchhill.
.....in order to fool the enemy, confuse him, if not completely throw him off track, at the very least reduce the value of any real information he acquired. - History's end, blogspot.
More on this later, but for now, just think about it, and how it applies to the Nubia ruse in African history.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You, yourself, is guilty of the very same contradictions that you accuse others of. You keep saying "Egypt" as if it were always a unified single nation.
Of course, by the old kingdom, Ta-Seti was part of the "unified" Egyptian state. The processes of this does indeed appear to have taken place in the predynastic times, but to state that the "A-group" had no separate polity of their own, and were one and same with the "Nagada" groups, would require substantiation.
Great post Supercar. This is something we often forget about the history of Egypt.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: You, yourself, is guilty of the very same contradictions that you accuse others of. You keep saying "Egypt" as if it were always a unified single nation.
Of course, by the old kingdom, Ta-Seti was part of the "unified" Egyptian state. The processes of this does indeed appear to have taken place in the predynastic times, but to state that the "A-group" had no separate polity of their own, and were one and same with the "Nagada" groups, would require substantiation.
As an aside, my response to your post was not directed at YOU or to EDUCATE YOU per say, but more to trying to clarify the issues surrounding Qustul in terms of its relation to Egypt. I didnt mean for you to get the impression that I was solely responding to YOU directly.
I wasnt trying to say that the A-Group and the Naquadan populations eventually merged and that the cultural artifacts became part of what was to become Egyptian cultural artifacts. Seeing that many A-Group motifs share similar styles to later dynastic themes, it would make sense that this fused group and culture would be so similar as not to be indistinguishable. MY point is that yes the A-Group /Ta-Seti was a distinct group, but not distinct as in SEPARATE from the groups and forces that eventually merged and became Egypt. There is a difference between the REAL cultural/polical differences between the early A-Group and Naquadan groups, however that is DIFFERENT than the FAKE separation introduced by Egyptologists trying to reinforce the idea of a SEPARATE and DISTINCT Nubian identity which NEVER existed and putting Ta-Seti into that identity in order to SEPARATE it from Egypt. This effort only CONFUSES the relationship between the two, puts MORE emphasis on Hierankopolis and Abydos as precursors for Egyptian dynastic culture, while IGNORING all the cultural pre-cursors that are found in Ta-Seti and hinted at in the areas found prior to the creation of Lake Nasser.
quote: A possible explanation for this is that A-Group society was so similar to that in predynastic Upper Egypt that there was a kind of equilibrium between them. These Nubian people were not living in the shade of the predynastic Egyptians, nor were they subservient to them in a colonial way. They had no need to leave their home in order to find food or employment in the big city. Given the growing desire for exotic goods like the obsidian from the temple, A-Group Nubians likely came to Egypt for transactions!
First off, this page proposes trying to figure out the relationship between A-Group "Nubians" and predynastic Egypt. The PROBLEM is that the A-Group was just as much PART of predynastic Egypt as ANY OTHER GROUP in that area. Therefore, this is again an attempt to REINFORCE a FAKE separation between Ta-Seti, which was PART of Egypt, and the rest of Dynastic Egypt, by creating a FICTIONAL association with NUBIA as if NUBIA actually existed. The relationship of Ta-Seti and other Predynastic groups is not a relationship between "Nubians" and predynastic Egyptians, it is a relationship between AMONG various city states and chiefs.
Which REALLY means that the A-Group were INDISTINGUISHABLE from other upper Egyptian predynastic groups of the time, with NUBIA having NOTHING to do with the relationship, since NUBIA did NOT exist. They were culturally, ethnically and politically CLOSER together than apart, but the whole REASON for FORCING them to be part of this FICTIONAL NUBIAN entity is to DIMINISH that fact. THEREFORE, any ARTIFACTS found will of COURSE be misconstrued based on this ERRONEOUS pre-existing belief in NUBIA as an actual historical entity, when it ISNT. The whole DISTINCTION between these groups on the upper nile is more cultural and subtle than what Egyptologists want to signify. It is impossible for people THAT close together to be THAT different ethnically or culturally. Yet the whole creation of NUBIA does just that, creates a FAKE ethnicity that they can use to separate and categorize people with NO RELATION to the facts. Therefore, you have to look at Qustul and everything found there in a DIFFERENT light than being NUBIAN. Qustul SHOULD be looked at as a PRINCIPLE force behind the creation of Dynastic Egypt and the A-Group as being ONE of the central groups to this process. That is based on the evidence. But to see this you HAVE to ignore the CONSTANT and REPEATED references to Nubia by archaeologists and Egyptologists who have found these artifacts and make theories as to their meaning.
Bottom line, what I am talking about is a forced separation of Egypt from its neighbors to the South and a FAKE entity called Nubia created to fill the space between the southern borders of Egypt all the way to the Sudan...
Ta-Seti/A-Group culture stretches all the way down to the second cataract. Note that MAP shows Ta-Seti extending deep to the south. Now, if what is below Lake Nasser is to be believed, there is a possibility that there was a complex culture there prior to or during the predynastic period in and around Abydos and Naquada. Either way, Ta-Seti was not Nubia it was Ta-Seti and therefore the relationship between the two is expressed in the fact that Ta-Seti, land of the bow, is also called Land of the Founders. Self explanatory dont you think? Another key question is whether the first dynasty border of Egypt was at the second cataract or at the first cataract. ACTUALLY this is the KEY question. If the border was at the second cataract, as it was during the middle kindom, then that puts Ta-Seti ENTIRELY in Egypt and makes Ta Seti PART of Egypt, with the nome being the ENTIRE land of Ta-Seti, not JUST up to the 1st cataract. Either way you have to get rid of this NONSENSE of Ta-Seti being part of something called Nubia, Nubia DID NOT EXIST as a separate country, civilization or culture. Note also that the major fortresses of Buhen and Abu Simbel are also SOUTH of Ta Seti. Therefore, these FORTS were NOT to protect against people from Ta Seti as "Nubians" and had NOTHING to do with them, once again showing how labelling the people of Ta Seti as Nubians is FAKE.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's impossible here to even only list the whole series of attributes, emblems and rituals of the early sovereigns which they had manifestly inherited from the middle Naqada or older chiefs[10]. These 'paraphernalia', which continued to accompain the pharaohs for the following 3000 years, are thus part of an ideology of power which had already begun to form in the predynastic period. Although, as we have shown, some aspects of the predynastic material and ideological culture were abandoned, many others were maintained forming the base of the Ancient Egyptian civilization and the symbols of a successful ruling elite. This powerful state, which appeared in the past (for the scanty evidence available) as if come out of the nothingness, has had a long period of formation; Cheops and the Great Pyramid are not a starting point in Egyptian history, but the result and the apex of nearly one millenium of evolution, half of which was accomplished before the dynastic period.
Therefore, as a result of the actual knowledge, we are inclined to stress the points of continuity between the predynastic and dynastic periods rather then the sudden change between them, which was only a distorted view depending on the scarcity of data available in the past for the oldest phases of this culture. The German archaeologist Werner Kaiser is an outstanding figure of modern Egyptology; still young in 1957 he re-elaborated Petrie's Sequence Dating chronology devising the subdivision into stufen: Naqada I, II and III with 11 and later 14 sub-phases; the system has carried on for forty years and has only recently undergone some corrections[11]. In 1964 Kaiser proposed, in an important article, that the political unification of Egypt had to be happened some generations before Narmer [12]; moreover the study of the objects commonly found in cemeteries, particularly pottery, had already shown that well before this political unification, a 'cultural unification' had affected and amalgamated customs and traditions of the peoples living along the Nile valley. These processes must have been both prolonged ones, not lasting the time span of only one or two generations.
The point being that the dates of unification of Egypt are in question and the whole process of development from predynastic to dynastic as well. Yes we do know that there was a first dynasty, but whether that first dynasty was represented by Narmer or Scorpion or whether there was a older unified dynasty and set of Kings is the question. My point is that the period in which the Qustul incense burner and other royal cemeteries are found are part of a older unified Egyptian culture prior to that of the first dynasty. Just as Egyptian culture spread North, it also spread south, with Ta-Seti being a PART of this unified state. This is ONE aspect of the BOGUS Nubian identity that Egyptologists constantly get wrong. They ALWAYS make the bowmen and Ta-Seti somehow a SEPARATE group from Egypt, when in all reality they were an INTEGRAL part of Egypt from the very beginning, meaning a culture that spread ALL THE WAY to the second cataract. This is where the fortresses are built and this is where you see Abu Simbel. These people were NOT subjects, these people were the FOUNDERS or from the LAND of the BEGINNINGS, where the gods were born. But this is to hard for them to admit, so they create all sorts of confusions and distortions about the whole process of unification in order to obscure this fact.
Otherwise, why would Kings from Ta-Seti be wearing the crown of Upper Egypt if they were not PART of Upper Egypt and a unified or pre unified polity? Either they were part of Upper Egypt and adopted customs FROM upper Egypt or they were ALREADY practicing such customs and their INFLUENCE spread to the rest of what became Egypt. Either way, this is PART of Egypt both in the predynastic AS WELL as the Dynastic period. Any history that puts Ta-Seti OUTSIDE of Egypt as part of "Nubia" is just blatantly distorting the truth, and omitting a SIGNIFIGANT aspect of Egyptian culture and history.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again the problem stems from the very definition of 'Nubian' and its conceived distinction from Egyptian.
The whole case of Ta-Seti a.k.a. Qustul stands out as an anomaly or rather a paradox of such definitions.
According to scholars like Bruce Trigger, The A-group differed very little from Upper Egyptians both in terms of physical appearance as well as culture. This has been noted by previous scholars before him, which is why in some old sources Lower Nubians like those of Ta Seti and Wawat were described as not being "negro" while Upper Nubians from Kush were "negro". And then there are other sources which relegate all of Nubia as being 'black' and thus seperate from Egypt, including Qustul. These sources love emphasizing Qustul's destruction and its peoples enslavement by protodynastic Egyptians!
So many contradictions. Mainstream academia can't ignore these discrepancies for long and will eventually have to confront them. When this happens it will only be a matter of time before the issue over the identity of the Egyptians will be faced as well.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
As an aside, my response to your post was not directed at YOU or to EDUCATE YOU per say
I agree that you are certainly not educating me on the problems associated with the European geopolitical re-construction of the term "Nubian", which interestingly is not a European invention. Matter fact, as far as I can remember, among the earliest attentions brought to this issue of what is wrong with the "Nubian" on Egyptsearch, include one of my very one. So, again, what are you trying to do then PER SE?
quote:Doug M:
but more to trying to clarify the issues surrounding Qustul in terms of its relation to Egypt. I didnt mean for you to get the impression that I was solely responding to YOU directly.
It cannot be a response to me, since I haven't made any statement legitimizing the use of the term "Nubian" as a geopolitical term; I did however, quote sources that may have been guilty of such, in which case, your point though taken, is not something I wasn't already aware of. Doug, again, someone asked me what arguments were supposedly out there, in relation to the Qustul incense, and I provided one. Do you have an issue with my doing this?
quote:Doug M:
I wasnt trying to say that the A-Group and the Naquadan populations eventually merged and that the cultural artifacts became part of what was to become Egyptian cultural artifacts.
Seeing that many A-Group motifs share similar styles to later dynastic themes, it would make sense that this fused group and culture would be so similar as not to be indistinguishable.
This is apparently where you and archeologists disagree; they see both "similarities/influences" and "distinctions" between the "Nagada" groups and the "A-group", within the predynastic context. Likewise, they saw "similarities/influences" between the "Nagada" groups and cultural groups of pre-dynastic "lower Egypt". The issue seems to be that among these groups, "Nagada" complex/groups is placed as the key part of the integration, based on distribution of archeological elements.
quote:Doug M:
MY point is that yes the A-Group /Ta-Seti was a distinct group, but not distinct as in SEPARATE from the groups and forces that eventually merged and became Egypt.
Well, all the mentioned "groups" of predynastic Egypt, were separate entities prior to alliances of the southern entities, and eventual unification of "lower pre-dynastic" Egyptian polities with the "pre-dynastic" upper Egyptian polities, which includes "Ta-Seti". I do agree with you that, considering "Ta-seti" was part of "unified" Egypt, it is pretty much part of "pre-dynastic" Egypt, and I am using the term "Egypt" in the latter [pre-dynastic "Egypt"] in a purely geographical sense, not a political term, which IMO, is almost as misleading as "Nubia" is used in a geographical sense, to the point that it is often looked as a political and ethnically homogenous entity.
quote:Doug M:
First off, this page proposes trying to figure out the relationship between A-Group "Nubians" and predynastic Egypt. The PROBLEM is that the A-Group was just as much PART of predynastic Egypt as ANY OTHER GROUP in that area. Therefore, this is again an attempt to REINFORCE a FAKE separation between Ta-Seti, which was PART of Egypt, and the rest of Dynastic Egypt, by creating a FICTIONAL association with NUBIA as if NUBIA actually existed. The relationship of Ta-Seti and other Predynastic groups is not a relationship between "Nubians" and predynastic Egyptians, it is a relationship between AMONG various city states and chiefs.
I am glad you said the latter [in italics], because when terms like "part of Egypt, and the rest of Dynastic Egypt" is used, it speaks of contradiction, whereby again, "part of Egypt" is the problem term, when there was no political entity called "Egypt" [the state] in the predynastic times.
quote:Doug M:
Which REALLY means that the A-Group were INDISTINGUISHABLE from other upper Egyptian predynastic groups of the time, with NUBIA having NOTHING to do with the relationship, since NUBIA did NOT exist.
Doug, though I know where you are coming from, there just seems to be weaknesses in the dissemination of the ideas you want to communicate. Of course the "A-group" were culturally "distinguishable" from other "pre-dynastic" upper Egyptian groups, just as "pre-dynastic" upper Egyptian groups were distinguishable from "pre-dynastic" lower Egyptian groups. Biologically speaking, "upper Egyptian" groups were found to be indistinguishable to the southern counterparts in "Kerma", as per Keita, which would imply that at some point, the "Upper Egyptian" groups had originated in the southern regions - a no brainer point.
quote:Doug M:
They were culturally, ethnically and politically CLOSER together than apart, but the whole REASON for FORCING them to be part of this FICTIONAL NUBIAN entity is to DIMINISH that fact.
Agreed, that there definitely close "cultural", "biological", and "political" ties between the pre-dynastic "upper-Egyptian" groups, with closer affinities among them than they appeared to have with pre-dyanstic "lower Egypt" polities, which in turn had closer cultural and political ties with SOME of the aforementioned pre-dynastic upper Egyptian groups [particularly the Nagada complexes], while sharing biological ties with ALL of them.
quote:Doug M:
THEREFORE, any ARTIFACTS found will of COURSE be misconstrued based on this ERRONEOUS pre-existing belief in NUBIA as an actual historical entity, when it ISNT. The whole DISTINCTION between these groups on the upper nile is more cultural and subtle than what Egyptologists want to signify.
A distinction is a distinction, but it is not necessarily mutually exclusive of "affinities".
quote:Doug M:
It is impossible for people THAT close together to be THAT different ethnically or culturally. Yet the whole creation of NUBIA does just that, creates a FAKE ethnicity that they can use to separate and categorize people with NO RELATION to the facts.
Therefore, you have to look at Qustul and everything found there in a DIFFERENT light than being NUBIAN.
Never did.
quote:Doug M:
Qustul SHOULD be looked at as a PRINCIPLE force behind the creation of Dynastic Egypt
...and ignore other archeological evidence?
quote:Doug M:
...and the A-Group as being ONE of the central groups to this process. That is based on the evidence.
"ONE of" is the Keyword here. From the archeological standpoint, the "Nagada" complex appears to be without question, the CENTRAL part of process leading to a unified state.
quote:Doug M:
But to see this you HAVE to ignore the CONSTANT and REPEATED references to Nubia by archaeologists and Egyptologists who have found these artifacts and make theories as to their meaning.
Bottom line, what I am talking about is a forced separation of Egypt from its neighbors to the South and a FAKE entity called Nubia created to fill the space between the southern borders of Egypt all the way to the Sudan...
Ta-Seti/A-Group culture stretches all the way down to the second cataract. Note that MAP shows Ta-Seti extending deep to the south. Now, if what is below Lake Nasser is to be believed, there is a possibility that there was a complex culture there prior to or during the predynastic period in and around Abydos and Naquada. Either way, Ta-Seti was not Nubia it was Ta-Seti and therefore the relationship between the two is expressed in the fact that Ta-Seti, land of the bow, is also called Land of the Founders. Self explanatory dont you think?
The idea of the "land of the beginning", certainly implicates awareness of the Egyptian rulers of the "southern" origins.
quote:Doug M:
Another key question is whether the first dynasty border of Egypt was at the second cataract or at the first cataract. ACTUALLY this is the KEY question. If the border was at the second cataract, as it was during the middle kindom, then that puts Ta-Seti ENTIRELY in Egypt and makes Ta Seti PART of Egypt, with the nome being the ENTIRE land of Ta-Seti, not JUST up to the 1st cataract.
There was Ta-Seti.nwt, the first cataract, and then there was Ta-Seti.x3st, beyond that region. The former was part of Kemet in the old Kingdom before the other - I use the term "before" because, Kemet's southern nomes did fluctuate over time, but with the Ta-Seti.nwt always part of the state.
quote:Doug M:
The point being that the dates of unification of Egypt are in question and the whole process of development from predynastic to dynastic as well. Yes we do know that there was a first dynasty, but whether that first dynasty was represented by Narmer or Scorpion or whether there was a older unified dynasty and set of Kings is the question. My point is that the period in which the Qustul incense burner and other royal cemeteries are found are part of a older unified Egyptian culture prior to that of the first dynasty.
If that were the case, why were there separate royal burial sites for the late Nagada elites, and another one for the "A-group" elites, with the Qustul incense found in that of the latter? Items in Abydos have been dated close to those found in Qustul, and in some cases, a little earlier.
quote:Doug M:
Just as Egyptian culture spread North, it also spread south, with Ta-Seti being a PART of this unified state. This is ONE aspect of the BOGUS Nubian identity that Egyptologists constantly get wrong. They ALWAYS make the bowmen and Ta-Seti somehow a SEPARATE group from Egypt, when in all reality they were an INTEGRAL part of Egypt from the very beginning, meaning a culture that spread ALL THE WAY to the second cataract.
Again, I am curious to know in what context "from the beginning" is placed here - the beginning of what?
quote:Doug M:
This is where the fortresses are built and this is where you see Abu Simbel. These people were NOT subjects, these people were the FOUNDERS or from the LAND of the BEGINNINGS, where the gods were born. But this is to hard for them to admit, so they create all sorts of confusions and distortions about the whole process of unification in order to obscure this fact.
Otherwise, why would Kings from Ta-Seti be wearing the crown of Upper Egypt if they were not PART of Upper Egypt and a unified or pre unified polity?
Either they were part of Upper Egypt and adopted customs FROM upper Egypt or they were ALREADY practicing such customs and their INFLUENCE spread to the rest of what became Egypt.
Good points raised. I think something else that needs to be carefully observed, is the burial styles of dynastic Egyptian elites, and those of the pre-dynastic upper-Egyptian groups [Ta-Seti included here]. Are those of "A-group" distinguishable enough from those of the "Nagada" - and are the dynastic styles closer in practice to one over the other?
quote:Doug M:
Either way, this is PART of Egypt both in the predynastic AS WELL as the Dynastic period. Any history that puts Ta-Seti OUTSIDE of Egypt as part of "Nubia" is just blatantly distorting the truth, and omitting a SIGNIFIGANT aspect of Egyptian culture and history.
I agree in general with this viewpoint, although, I personally would place the former [in bold], concening the term "Egypt" in the pre-dynastic era before unification, in a purely geographical sense [which I have reservations for without the subtitle of "predynastic" placed before the term "Egypt"], while its use in "unified" Egypt, as a geopolitical term.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has been a great debate. I have Learned Alot about predynastic egypt and the so called nubian regions. To see that Ta Seti was in fact apart of Egypt is not a surprise. As for the A-Group to read that it was absorbed into upper egypt is a surprise because you never hear anybody say this kind of truth. So the A-Group was similar in physical appearance as well as culture to upper Egyptians. The more this gets out the more that egyptology is going to have to face the fact that Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans. And it is going to get harder to cover up this kind of truth. I wonder why more work is not being done in the Sudan to find out more about the relationship between the A-Group and Upper egypt. I would think that people could find more info about the relationship from digging in the Sudan. I hope this debate continues because their is lots of information I have learned about. Keep up the good work Doug M, Rasol, Supercar,and Djehuti.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am glad to have helped. Keep in mind that this area is one of the most questioned eras of Egyptian history.
MY take on it:
Ta Seti was a city state (polity) in Upper Egypt. That city state was merged into Egypt in the dynastic period. The issue in question and the REAL problem is the area between the first cataract and the second cataract. On one hand in the predynastic period that area was occupied by Ta Seti. After unification, some say this area was uninhabited, hence the idea that the A-Group/Ta-Seti dissappeared. A key point to understand is that, as supercar pointed out, there is a difference between Ta-Seti (the nome) and Ta-Seti (the frontier). However, it is important to keep in mind that Ta-Seti represents the original culture of Ta-Seti (the A-Group) who merged INTO predynastic Egypt. It is THAT fact that makes ANY attempt to casually talk about Ta-Seti as being the home of the "Nubians" a distortion. Not only because Nubia as an entity never existed, but because it attampts to confuse the issue of Egypt's relation to it's southern neighbors and is a RUSE for taking the 1st Nome of Egypt and putting it into "Nubia".
What we really had was that the "frontier" areas of Egypt between the first cataract and the 3rd cataract were CONSTANTLY in a state of flux. There were MANY different groups who appeared at different times in this region and NONE of them identified themselves as NUBIANS. Some of these people were hostile to Egypt, some weren't. Therefore, it is inaccurate to LUMP all these people together as ONE ethnic group or nation called Nubia. The reason being that if the border of Egypt was at the 3rd cataract in the Middle Kingdom, then saying that Thutmosis engaged in campaigns AGAINST the Nubians makes it hard to understand the CONTEXT in which this campaign occured and confuses or distorts the relationship between the Egyptians and Nubians once again. If you are talking about the Middle Kingdom just after the Second Intermediate Period, Egypt had been ASSISTED by its neighbors to the IMMEDIATE South between the 1st and 2nd cataract. Some say these people were vassals, some say colonized, but you have to be specific since there is a long way between the 1st cataract and the 3rd cataract. The Medjay were basically bedouins, not part of any "Nubia" but just ONE of the groups that appeared to the South of Egypt. Another was the Yam and another the Wawat and further south Kerma and Meroe. Lumping all of these people together only serves to confuse the whole issue and create a FAKE entity "Nubia". So when the campaigns in the south were taking place under Thutmosis, WHO were they attacking? The Medjay, The Wawat, The Yam or the Kushites? It wouldn't make sense for them to be attacking the Medjay, since these people ASSISTED the Egyptians with the Hyksos. This is why lumping these people all together as ONE group and calling campaigns against "Nubians" or "Nubia" as a campaign against a monolithic entity is not only erroneous but blatantly distorts reality by creating a FAKE distinction based on a PHONY ethnic distinction between Egyptians and those to the south.
Case in point, if Ta-Seti (the nome) was PART of Egypt and was derived from people of the city state of Ta-Seti, then HOW could they be considered "Nubians". If archers came from the first Nome of Ta-Seti then why are they called "Nubians" and not just Egyptians? DId the bowmen from the first nome stop being the EXPERT archers their nome is NAMED for? Were the people SUBJECTS or were they EGYPTIANS? These questions will LARGELY be affected by how you view the whole idea of "Nubia". Basically, it just causes a DIVISION where there SHOULD be none. What about the prophecy of Neferti? Is that referring to Ta-Seti the first nome of Egypt or to another group further south? The answer should be obvious. And then what about the year 400 stela which relates that Ramesses was "Great of the Medjay"? What does that mean and what does THAT say about the relationship between Egypt and people to the South. I could go on and on, but suffice to say the relationship between Egypt and those to the south is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than simply Egypt vs Nubia or Egypt vs Nubians, which only CLOUDS the issue, not CLARIFIES anything.
http://www.numibia.net/nubia/c-group2.htm Note how they associate Pan-Grave culture with Nubia and the Medjay even though they call the Medjay a DISTINCT people. Then why call them NUBIAN? Likewise, this page states that these "Nubian" archers were DARKER than their Egyptian counterparts, then goes on to mention the following:
quote: The C-Group population was smaller and significantly more dark skinned than the contemporary Egyptian population. This shows not only in the results of osteological investigations but can also be seen in a wooden model of a company of archers from a tomb in Assiut, today in the Cairo Museum. There they wear a half-length coiffure with a headband and tight kilts, covered with beadwork. They were already employed in the Egyptian army in the Old Kingdom and played an important part in wars between the monarchs and in the unification process of Egypt during the First Intermediate Period.
http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/nubians.html Very interesting, but the King and the "Nubians" dont look much DIFFERENT. Even this page addresses the issue that these "Nubians" of the Pan-Grave culture were closer to Egypt than previously thought.... Also note how the natives on these digs, presumably from the AREA look....
Splitting images of ancient Egypt dont you think and also note how their features defy the STEREOTYPICAL black African feature type....
posted
^ Want to add the observation again that above the 1st cataract, the nile valley, meaning the area watered by the nile river gets very narrow.
There isn't much arable land there - it's one of the world's most harsh deserts. This is the real basis for geographical division in the Nile valley - below the 1st cataract - lots of good land, above it - not.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
posted 12 February, 2006 time to stop the "Nubian" nonsense
I think that it's about time that we start phasing out the term "Nubia" as a euphemism for "Negro"; "Ethiopian" ; ad nauseum -- This, of course, will not be easy.
Reasons to not use the term: a) There is no region or people in the Mdu Ntr called "Nubians"; this was applied by the Romans to the gold mining region of Upper Egypt/Sudan, and comes from the Mdu Ntr "nub" for gold... b) In the Mdu Ntr "Nubi;Nubiu" simply means gold miner(s)... c) Kush/Ekush (Kushi/Ekushi) was in what is now Upper Egypt/Sudan and is NOT Nubia... d) Ethaosh are the contries on the frontier of Kemet... e) Saba/Sheba (Meroe) is in the same region and it also is NOT Nubia... f) The proper term for "Negroes"; "Ethiopians" would be "Kememu"...
and there are more reasons...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ta Seti was a city state (polity) in Upper Egypt. That city state was merged into Egypt in the dynastic period. The issue in question and the REAL problem is the area between the first cataract and the second cataract. On one hand in the predynastic period that area was occupied by Ta Seti. After unification, some say this area was uninhabited, hence the idea that the A-Group/Ta-Seti dissappeared. A key point to understand is that, as supercar pointed out, there is a difference between Ta-Seti (the nome) and Ta-Seti (the frontier). However, it is important to keep in mind that Ta-Seti represents the original culture of Ta-Seti (the A-Group) who merged INTO predynastic Egypt. It is THAT fact that makes ANY attempt to casually talk about Ta-Seti as being the home of the "Nubians" a distortion. Not only because Nubia as an entity never existed, but because it attampts to confuse the issue of Egypt's relation to it's southern neighbors and is a RUSE for taking the 1st Nome of Egypt and putting it into "Nubia".
Agreed.
quote:What we really had was that the "frontier" areas of Egypt between the first cataract and the 3rd cataract were CONSTANTLY in a state of flux. There were MANY different groups who appeared at different times in this region and NONE of them identified themselves as NUBIANS. Some of these people were hostile to Egypt, some weren't. Therefore, it is inaccurate to LUMP all these people together as ONE ethnic group or nation called Nubia...
Of course! Unfortunately that's what we have with the issue of 'Nubia'. *sigh*
quote:The reason being that if the border of Egypt was at the 3rd cataract in the Middle Kingdom, then saying that Thutmosis engaged in campaigns AGAINST the Nubians makes it hard to understand the CONTEXT in which this campaign occured and confuses or distorts the relationship between the Egyptians and Nubians once again. If you are talking about the Middle Kingdom just after the Second Intermediate Period, Egypt had been ASSISTED by its neighbors to the IMMEDIATE South between the 1st and 2nd cataract. Some say these people were vassals, some say colonized, but you have to be specific since there is a long way between the 1st cataract and the 3rd cataract. The Medjay were basically bedouins, not part of any "Nubia" but just ONE of the groups that appeared to the South of Egypt. Another was the Yam and another the Wawat and further south Kerma and Meroe. Lumping all of these people together only serves to confuse the whole issue and create a FAKE entity "Nubia". So when the campaigns in the south were taking place under Thutmosis, WHO were they attacking? The Medjay, The Wawat, The Yam or the Kushites? It wouldn't make sense for them to be attacking the Medjay, since these people ASSISTED the Egyptians with the Hyksos.
This is why lumping these people all together as ONE group and calling campaigns against "Nubians" or "Nubia" as a campaign against a monolithic entity is not only erroneous but blatantly distorts reality by creating a FAKE distinction based on a PHONY ethnic distinction between Egyptians and those to the south.
Indeed. Note the irony in that the enemy [the Kushites] which the 18th dynasty had campaigned against were 'Nubians', yet their allies [the Medjay] were also 'Nubians'. This has been pointed out here on this board countless times now.
quote:Case in point, if Ta-Seti (the nome) was PART of Egypt and was derived from people of the city state of Ta-Seti, then HOW could they be considered "Nubians". If archers came from the first Nome of Ta-Seti then why are they called "Nubians" and not just Egyptians? DId the bowmen from the first nome stop being the EXPERT archers their nome is NAMED for? Were the people SUBJECTS or were they EGYPTIANS? These questions will LARGELY be affected by how you view the whole idea of "Nubia". Basically, it just causes a DIVISION where there SHOULD be none. What about the prophecy of Neferti? Is that referring to Ta-Seti the first nome of Egypt or to another group further south? The answer should be obvious. And then what about the year 400 stela which relates that Ramesses was "Great of the Medjay"? What does that mean and what does THAT say about the relationship between Egypt and people to the South. I could go on and on, but suffice to say the relationship between Egypt and those to the south is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than simply Egypt vs Nubia or Egypt vs Nubians, which only CLOUDS the issue, not CLARIFIES anything.
http://www.numibia.net/nubia/c-group2.htm Note how they associate Pan-Grave culture with Nubia and the Medjay even though they call the Medjay a DISTINCT people. Then why call them NUBIAN? Likewise, this page states that these "Nubian" archers were DARKER than their Egyptian counterparts, then goes on to mention the following:
quote: The C-Group population was smaller and significantly more dark skinned than the contemporary Egyptian population. This shows not only in the results of osteological investigations but can also be seen in a wooden model of a company of archers from a tomb in Assiut, today in the Cairo Museum. There they wear a half-length coiffure with a headband and tight kilts, covered with beadwork. They were already employed in the Egyptian army in the Old Kingdom and played an important part in wars between the monarchs and in the unification process of Egypt during the First Intermediate Period.
http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/nubians.html Very interesting, but the King and the "Nubians" dont look much DIFFERENT. Even this page addresses the issue that these "Nubians" of the Pan-Grave culture were closer to Egypt than previously thought.... Also note how the natives on these digs, presumably from the AREA look....
Splitting images of ancient Egypt dont you think and also note how their features defy the STEREOTYPICAL black African feature type....
It's quite simple the reason for the Nubian/Egyptian dichotomy-- to seperate Egypt from Africa where Nubia is African but Egypt isn't.
Unfortunately for the Eurocentrics, when one examines the FACTS of this dilema one could easily note the flaws which then annihilate the whole farce that is the Nubian/Egyptian dichotomy.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To those of you who may be interested the discovery channel is airing a documentary largely about Meroe.
Unfortunately this film has the expected shortcomings: 1)it treats Nubia as one polity; 2)the narrator boldly declares "Nubia was African" - true enough but said in a way that implies that Egypt was not African.
It's worth seeing nonetheless if only for the haunting beauty of the landscape and the magnificence of the ruined temples.
quote:The Science Channel :: Episode :: Nubia: The Forgotten Kingdom ... MAY 23 2006 @ 04:00 AM. MAY 23 2006 @ 10:00 AM. MAY 23 2006 @ 02:00 PM. MAY 27 2006 @ 05:00 PM. SCI — Nubia: The Forgotten Kingdom. Nubia: The Forgotten Kingdom ...
posted
Supercar, just to inject some new vibe into the argument, Williams detected (is that the right word?) an A-Group bowl that shows a falcon tearing at a prisoner labeled with the symbols for Ta-Shemau. (Upper Egypt) Is this to say that "Ta-Seti" and Egypt were rivals form empire? What's your input kemosabe?
-------------------- There was time now, there was time! Posts: 24 | From: hell | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Nubia is a Kemetic, that is "ancient Egyptian" word.
It means 'gold' and referred to gold bearing regions of Kemet. The city of Nub.t [nubia] is actually found in Ta Shemu, upper Egypt....
Look, shown below is the oldest known reference to Nubia:
quote:Naqada was the necropolis of the town of Nubt, the town of gold, known in Greek as Ombos. It had been devoted to the god Set, or Set of Nub.t
All the concepts of Nubia we use now, are dated back to the Romans - who used the Kemetic word to refer generally to people south of Kemet.
Many of the people now called Nubians - Nuba, Noba, etc. speak Nilo-saharan languages.
Well the root word of Nubia, Noba, etc.. has no meaning in those languages.
In fact, in some of these Sudanese languages Nubian means 'slave' because they inherit the word as as alien 'Roman' term.
Prior to the Roman and Greeks - there is no country of Nubia as referenced in ancient Egyptian, Merotic or any other records.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The AE called Nubia Ta-Seti I thought? Are you saying there was no established country south of AE before Ancient Ethiopia? If so, you have a lot of explaining to do.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Again...we impose out of habit European concepts on ancient Nile Valley Africa.
Ta Seti refers in mdw ntr to the southern Nile Valley.
It extended from Elephantine around the 1st cataract - to Qustal in Sudan and futher south.
Ta Seti was the 1st nome of KM.t, but also extended south beyound the typically ill-defined upper Nile valley borders of Km.t.
Ta Seti was later and qually a part of Kush.
When Km.t was at it's most powerful in the new Kingdom all of TaSeti was a part of Km.t.
When Kush was at it's most powerful all of Ta Seti was a part of Kush.
The region that was known as TaSeti is currently a part of both Egypt and the Sudan.
quote:Are you saying there was no established country south of AE before Ancient Ethiopia?
Arguably Km.t is the 1st nation-state on earth and there is no 'country/so defined' before km.t - anywhere.
However the real question is - are you saying that Nubia is any country south of Egypt?
And if so, can you tell us what is the source and antiquity of this definition of Nubia.
quote: If so, you have a lot of explaining to do.
Actually this thread has done all the explaining that is necessary. I'd say you have a lot reading [or re-reading] to do.
I believe direct questions can cut thru a lot of redundant or non progressive discussions on ES.
Do you have a pre Roman, native African reference to a country called Nubia?
It's a yes or no question, and it is fair as we've shown you ancient Nubia - the city and region that was - a part of the country called Km.t.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just shocked because I've never heard anyone at all...anywhere say this before (besides here). I was always under the impression that the Ancient Greeks called the Nubians 'Ethiopians.' And that they had a seperate culture than AE. Then who the hell was it that AE was fighting with? And who were the mercenary soldiers AE employed into their army? The Nubian Archers?
There was even a Nubian Dynasty (the 25th) in AE. There are the Nubian Pyramids too. Here's a site about Ancient Nubia...and it's from Homestead, a site about black nations and I can't find it any claims on there that says what some of you are saying.
EDIT: You know honestly...I haven't even read this thread yet save the first few posts...lol!!! It's too long and I'm too tired right now. But if there is a book about this I'd like to know about it. Because like I said, I've never heard of this theory before...not even by Afrocentrist!
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That's the problem. There's and entire ideology that his been devoted to the mutilation of African history by distorting concepts such as Nubia.
quote: Then who the hell was it that AE was fighting with? And who were the mercenary soldiers AE employed into their army? The Nubian Archers?
You are refering to the Medijay, likely ancestors of the Beja.
The Beja provide and excellent example of the misleading modern concept of Nubian.
Nubian is defined in modern scholarship ehno-linguistically as follows:
Any of a group of closely related Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in the Sudan. Also called Nuba.
The Beja do not speak a Nilo-Saharan language.
Their language is Cushitic and so more closely related to Kemetic [ancient egyptian] than a Nilo Saharan - "nubian" - language.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was even a Nubian Dynasty (the 25th) in AE.
A Kushite dynasty yes, but it was never referred to as a Nubian dynasty, by either the Kushites or the KM.t [Egyptians].
quote: There are the Nubian Pyramids too.
lol. Indeed - there are more pyramids in "Nubia" than anywhere else in the Nile Valley. But nubia here is defined as a geography that is a part of Egypt and Sudan.
But this doesn't meet the requirement of 'ancient nation of nubia', does it?
quote:Here's a site about Ancient Nubia...and it's from Homestead, a site about black nations and I can't find it any claims on there that says what some of you are saying.
Lol. The question is, can you find any verification for what you are saying?
In other words:
Do you have a pre Roman, native African reference to a country called Nubia?
Since the answer is effectively no. The next step is to start asking yourself why you believe in something you've never been provided evidence of ? Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: I'm just shocked because I've never heard anyone at all...anywhere say this before (besides here). I was always under the impression that the Ancient Greeks called the Nubians 'Ethiopians.' And that they had a seperate culture than AE. Then who the hell was it that AE was fighting with? And who were the mercenary soldiers AE employed into their army? The Nubian Archers?
There was even a Nubian Dynasty (the 25th) in AE. There are the Nubian Pyramids too. Here's a site about Ancient Nubia...and it's from Homestead, a site about black nations and I can't find it any claims on there that says what some of you are saying.
EDIT: You know honestly...I haven't even read this thread yet save the first few posts...lol!!! It's too long and I'm too tired right now. But if there is a book about this I'd like to know about it. Because like I said, I've never heard of this theory before...not even by Afrocentrist!
The reason that you have never heard it before is because it is DOGMA that has been preached by the Egyptologists since the beginning of Egyptology. In the beginning of Egyptology, no doubt Nubia was seen as reperesenting "black" Africans as different from ancient Egyptians. In more recent times, "Nubia" has been reinforced within Egyptology as a buffer against the Afrocentrics. Therefore, the blackness of the Nubians is OVER emphasized and pushed in order to provide respite and the basis for separating Egypt from the rest of Africa. Neither of which has ANYTHING to do with the truth. Check this thread here and read what an Egyptologist herself says about using Nubia as a buffer against Afrocentrists: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/afrocent_roth.html So that is why Nubia is pushed today as a black country and culture, with many Afrocentrics unknowingly/knowingly FALLING INTO THE TRAP.
Nubia as a country, nation, civilization, culture or anything else NEVER existed. In all reality it is an ARBITRARY term created to refer to ALL people south of Egypt, which would include ALL of Sudan south of the Nile. Any person with any amount of logic would realize that this is a vast area full of very different populations, histories and cultures that are related but not as part of some "Nubian" nationality or ethnicity. Case in point, how come when you hear about the slaughter in the Sudan, you never hear the Sudanese being referred to as "Nubians". Because it has no bearing on the ethnic groups, their identities and cultures in the Sudan. The only time you hear Nubia is when you are talking about ANCIENT Sudan and Egypt an it is JUST as meaningless for ancient ethnicities and cultures as today's Sudanese ethnic and cultural landscape.
The REAL signifigance of the creation of Nubia and the reason why it is a pure distortion of history is because Egypt was actually the tail end of a LONG STRING of cultures that emerged from along the Nile going SOUTH into the Sudan and further. Populations have been migrating along the Nile since time immemorial and developing culture all along. Environmental factors are an important reason for these migrations, because rainfall and the amount of fertile soil was key to a populations survival. Prior to the MODERN concept of nations and national boundaries, people migrated when the land got arid and searched for NEW LAND that was fertile either for cattle grazing, cultivation or both. This same environmental pressure influenced migrants to move EAST from the Sahara after its last wet phase, when the Sahara became desert. The next fertile area they would have encountered would have been the Nile. Therefore, from time long before Egypt existed, Africans from the West and South have been migrating into and through the Nile valley. The key here is that prior to "civilization", which is the creation of a fixed, distinct nation and national identity, these people were known by their original ethnicities or cultures. So in reality you have the basis for a wide ranging populations with their own ethnicities and cultures along the Lower Nile valley prior to the formation of the Egyptian state.
These cultures were ALL RELATED, since peoples have been migrating, mingling, trading, fighting and copulating along the Nile for thousands of years prior to the formation of dynastic Egypt. A perfect example of this relationship is black topped pottery ware. Black topped pottery is SUPPOSEDLY a classic sign of the first "Nubian" culture group, the A-Group. If you do a search for black topped pottery and badarian, you will find that MUCH of the Nile Valley had already been producing black topped redware and this was associated with the Badarian culture. Therefore, this idea of the A-Group being a separate and distinct "Nubian" cultural element is baseless. THAT is why you hear people like the researcher at Hierankopolis wondering why the Egyptians and the "Nubians" seemed almost identical. Well, in all honesty they WERE identical and the culture and lifestyle that existed in that period was ALREADY part of a widespread cultural complex along the Nile, with the A-Group being PART of this culture or an extension of it, not some SEPARATE entity.
Ta-Seti or Upper Egypt is in all reality the first expression of this unity of culture and ethnicity and was in all likely hood the FIRST example of a unified Egyptian state, with UPPER Egypt at that time stretching from the 2nd cataract in the south to the 1st cataract and Hierankopolis in the North. THAT is why the kings of Ta Seti where the White crown of Upper Egypt even though at that time Lower Egypt stretched all the way into Canann and the Levant. Therefore, there is much evidence to show that the Egyptian state originated amid a long phase of development of cultural contacts and exchanges that started in the South and expanded outwards in all directions, eventually ENCOMPASSING many groups in both directions. Much of this expansion and assimilation took place before the first dynasty and Ta Seti was identified as the HOME and ORIGIN of the culture and tradition of the Egyptian kingship.
Given that fact, it is impossible to place "Nubia" in any historical context except to ERASE the orgins of Egyptian culture in the South around Ta Seti. Therefore Nubia is MEANT to confuse and distort the relationship between Egypt and its southern neigbors. It hides the fact that Egyptian culture ORIGINATED amongst people called "Nubians". It separates Egyptian cultural development from the cultures in the South and makes Egypt ANTAGONISTIC to and SEPARATE from its Southern Neighbors and ITSELF. The conflicts in the South of Egypt LARGELY had to do with Egypt defending its SOUTHERN gold mining and quarrying regions as well as defending its own territory, since the Land of Ta Seti was an important gold mining area and an area of sometimes fertile soil conditions along the Nile. This put the region between the first and second cataracts into position as being a place CONTESTED over by many groups, including Nomads from the desert, people to the South and Egypt in the North. So the conflicts in the South were not between Egypt and the people of Ta Seti as Nubians, but between Egypt and other populations who were trying to occupy and TAKE Ta Seti FROM Egypt. The term Nubian only BLURS this distinction and makes it seem like all people to the South were the same and part of one country when they werent. The reality is a lot more complex than that.
You have to keep in mind that cultural patterns change and shift over time is a natural process of development within ANY society. However, Egyptologists often use such shifts as an indication of RACIAL/ETHNIC differentiation, when in reality such distinctions, especially among Southern Egyptians is blatanty pure DISTORTION. Red topped ware, the development of different styles of burials and other cultural shifts does NOT represent the introduction of a NEW RACE into the Nile Valley. This MYTH has been lingering in Egyptology since THE VERY BEGINNING, even though they deny it. It is THIS idea of the Egyptians being a UNIQUE race with a unique heritage that is TOTALLY behind the use of Nubia as more of a RACIAL concept than a national, ethnic or cultural concept. Therefore, the beginning of the Egyptian state does NOT represent the creation of a NEW RACE in Egypt. A NEW population of people did not SUDDENLY pop up and replace the prior inhabitants of the region, like the U.S. in America. Therefore, these cultures were ALL related, similar to the way the Aztecs and Maya were related as being part of the same cultural complex in South America. No one would call the Aztecs and Maya separate RACES. Yet that is exactly what is behind this whole concept of Nubian and its use as a RACIAL buffer between Egypt and the rest of Africa.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by J-Dog: Supercar, just to inject some new vibe into the argument, Williams detected (is that the right word?) an A-Group bowl that shows a falcon tearing at a prisoner labeled with the symbols for Ta-Shemau. (Upper Egypt) Is this to say that "Ta-Seti" and Egypt were rivals form empire? What's your input kemosabe?
Would this have been the late part of the "A-Group"(?); in the late Nagada period-Dynasty "0" era , incursions from the Nagada regions into the Ta-Seti A-group locales have been demonstrated by finds like:
a famous rock-cut inscription at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman in Nubia, which shows an early serekh presiding over a scene which seems to record an Egyptian raid into Nubia at the end of the Predynastic Period. This serekh is empty, but it is very probable that the individual who ordered the inscription to be cut was a Southern Egyptian king, perhaps based at Hierakonpolis. - TourEgypt.net
...so certainly the ambitious polities immediately neighboring that of "A-group", i.e. to say in the downward direction of the Nile from the "A-group" locale, had their eyes set in controlling the "A-group" locales, in the periods nearing the turn of "predynastic" Egypt, perhaps by which time, the "predynastic upper Egyptian" [used in a purely geographical sense here] polities neighboring those of the "A-group predynastic upper Egyptian" one(s) down the Nile, had maintained unified alliances and had already moved [or else were ready to move into] pre-dynastic "lower" Egyptian polities to bring them under their full political control - as opposed to just business relationships.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe one should be very careful before assuming Kemetian individuals' actual skin colors only relying on Kemetian artefacts. Here are some other pics of the very same Montuhotep II:
Now lets look at some "Nubian" archers" Very interesting, but the King and the "Nubians" dont look much DIFFERENT. Even this page addresses the issue that these "Nubians" of the Pan-Grave culture were closer to Egypt than previously thought....
posted
I did notice that. And that is precisely my point. Looking at those Africans painted black, you have to wonder if that was SYMBOLIC/POLITICAL versus literal. And just WHO were these Africans, bowmen from Ta Seti maybe? If that was the case then they were most certainly Egyptians. Similarly you have to wonder WHY SO MANY of the statues of MentuHotep found around his mortuary temple were ALSO painted black? Maybe in recognition of the fact that these guys painted in black helped SAVE Egypt's bacon from the asiatics? There are few public images of Mentuhotep, but there is another from the tomb of a MK temple official that shows MentuHotep and his wife, where his wife is painted black and emerging from the sacred hill..... What does THAT mean? Like you said, you cant judge a book by its colors....
But no I wasnt trying to imply that MentuHotep had black skin and neither did the so-called Nubians. Just pointing out how colors can be MISINTERPERETED and used to support false distortions of history.
If anything the images of Montuhotep remind me of these people from upper Egypt: Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 11th dynasty is a very complex dynasty. On one hand, there is the ongoing struggle between the Theban princes(kings?) and the Lower Egyptian Kings (Asiatics?). The first ruler of the IIth dynasty is sometimes questioned but Montuhotep II is generally accepted as the founder of the dynasty. This is probably because of his reunification of Upper and Lower Egypt. As a result of the chaos of the First Intermediate Period, there were MANY rulers in different parts of Egypt, in three broad areas: Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt and Ta Seti. Because of all these rulers, the lists of Kings sometimes gets confused, especially since the various king lists from later periods are not consistent or lacking in information all together. The situation is so bad that often you will see only 3 kings listed for the entire period.
Either way, these guys were all from Upper Egypt, since prior to Montuhotep, they only ruled as far north as the XVIIth nome. The reason the dynasty ends so quick is because rulers from the South were contending for the throne and one of them Amenhemaat actually succeeded in usurping it after Montuhotep IV. The point being that BOTH the 11th and 12th dynasties had STRONG ties to Upper Egypt and Ta Seti.
My opinion is that these "usurpers" were descendents of the people who helped Montuhotep and others defeat the Lower Egyptian kings and establish the New Kingdom. There is no doubt that the Egyptians had help from these so-called "Nubians", but it is obvious that they wanted more than a SYMBOLIC connection to the throne and therefore took the issue into their own hands when they saw an opportunity. Like I said also, in a tomb of a high official in the Middle Kingdom, there is an image of Montuhotep II with his wife depicted as black like those "Nubians" emerging from the sacred hill of Amun (Lower Sudan). Amenhemaat's name is an homage to Amun, which further gives rise to the ancient connections between Egypt and its Southern neighbors. This is the time frame in which we get the early references to the Egyptian acknowledgement of Gebel Barkal. NOTE here the discussion of the symbolism of Gebel Barkal and the throne of Egypt.
The only way to understand this is from the point of view of the allies of the early New Kindgom in the fight against Lower Egypt. This therefore is explicit acknowledgement that the SOUTH was the home of the UNIFIER of the two lands. Therefore, this symbolic merging of Gebel Barkal and Amun of Karnak are a symbol of the political/social/religious unification of Upper Egypt and its Southern neighbors. THIS is why Egypt extended to its FURTHEST POINT SOUTH at the time of the 12th Dynasty, not because they necessarily were at war, but because these PEOPLE, the "black" warriors depicted in the tombs from MOntuhotep, had become an integral part of the Egyptian state.
It is here, in the FIRST of three campaigns against NORTHERN invaders, where we see Egypt's CLOSE ties to Africa and SOUTHERN Africans. Hence any Eurocentric scholar who tries to put some sort of European/Asiatic slant on these dynasties is TOTALLY insane and TOTALLY going AGAINST the evidence. It also shows that the 25th dynasty was NOT the FIRST period of "Nubian" kings in Egypt, since the very FIRST Kings came from the South and they REGULARLY reappeared "magically" to restore the Kingdom as well. This is well documented in MANY sources, including the black statues, the references to Gebel Barkal AND the prophecy of Neferti. THAT is why listening to Euroecentric Egyptologists and their NONSENSE that tries to INVENT history based around FICTIONAL "Nubians" an FICTIONAL "BLACK" races is PURE NONSENSE and has NOTHING to do with the history of the time.
According to the Egyptologists, these "black" African Nubians were just "subjects" who were used from time to time and just went back to being "subjects" of the kingdom after helping Egypt unify..... please. If these guys were so fierce and strong enough to defeat the powerful kings of Lower Egypt, what makes you think that they were scared of or "subject" to the WEAK upper Egyptian kings who NEEDED their help? OBVIOUSLY if they were strong enough to TAKE back the throne of Lower Egypt and reunify the kingdom with Montuhotep, they were strong enough to take the throne again for themselves.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some more evidence of the MIS identification of ALL people below the 1st cataract as "Nubians" and why it only serves to OBSCURE not clarify the relation of Egypt to its southern neighbors.
The conclusion here is that the fortresses of the 12th dynasty were more for defense against the rise of the Kerma civilization, not for C-group "Nubians". The whole basis of this paper is to find out why the Egyptians built these forts and who they were defending against. UNLESS you understand that people CLOSE to the first cataract were PART of Upper Egypt and that these people from Ta Seti LAND OF THE BOW, are where the ARCHERS came from and were not just "Nubians" of course it wont make sense. You HAVE to separate the different populations in the South because EACH was treated differently by the Egyptians because EACH had different relations. They were NOT all unified as ONE group and NOT all acting in UNISON as some organized front AGAINST Egypt. Otherwise, WHY would they send ARCHERS to help? Makes no sense does it. Ts Seti was governed the same way as Upper and Lower Egypt, since Ta Seti was PART of Egypt. But Ta Seti also had a SPECIAL signifigance being the only NOME treated in the same way as the whole Upper and Lower Egypt. This is because Egypt's STRENGTH came from Ta Seti, not only because of the wealth in raw materials, but the people, the origins of much of Egypt's culture AND the military support that would prove CRITICAL throughout Egypt's history. Note that the fortresses discussed on this page are all ABOVE Ta Seti, showing that Ta Seti was NOT just some "Nubian" vassal state, it was PART of Egypt. The conflicts were not with these people of Ta Seti, it was with the people of Kush/Kerma. But of course, the Egyptologists would rather SEPARATE Ta Seti from Egypt and lump it into "Nubia" in order to make them seem SEPARATE from Egypt's history.
More on the First Intermediate period and the RULE of Upper Egypt:
The "Nubian" 25th Dynasty. Note how at this point in time Napata was largely a culture derived from FORMER Egyptians who migrated South after the period of decay and chaos of the 20th dynasty in Egypt and when the Libyans and other foreigners assumed the throne. People like the Medjay and others from Ta Seti brought much of Egypt's culture with them to Napata, once again showing the strong ties between Egypt and the South, that had been forged over many years.
Note how they call the C-Group a NEW RACE!!! But yet and still they call them NUBIANS? How can they be NUBIANS if they are a new RACE? And, how is NUBIAN a race? Then they also say that these people were NOT negroes??? What is a NEGRO? So much nonsense it is ridiculous. This is more of the junk about Egypt and Nubia that gets thrown out there and regurgitated as FACT. It is time that we STOPPED using Nubia as a historical reference to peoples of the South of Egypt, since it is PURELY a FICTION.
The key NUGGET here is that this is the period when AMUN became strongly identified with Thebes, whereas prior to that, it was primarily Montu who reigned at Karnak. Note also the references to taking the two lands.....
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Egypt had relations with "Nubia" since predynastic times."
How if there was NO EGYPT in predynastic times?
"Egypt separated from Nubia with the establishment of Elephantine" and "This Nubian area was called 'Ta Seti or Land of the bow'." and "Egypt occupied and annexed Ta Seti, and named the first province in its homage." and "Nubians dissapeared from the Map between the first and second cataracts at the beginning of the Dynastic period."
How about Ta Seti and Egypt became ONE country at the beginning of the dynastic period with Ta Seti extending SOUTH of Elephantine, but mainly being used as a quarry and mining area since the population MOVED to Egypt proper because of the HARSH environment. Why is THAT so hard to SEE from the evidence? The fortress at Elephantine was just a barrier to invaders entering from "no mans land".
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again the problem stems from the very definition of 'Nubian' and its conceived distinction from Egyptian.
The whole case of Ta-Seti a.k.a. Qustul stands out as an anomaly or rather a paradox of such definitions.
According to scholars like Bruce Trigger, The A-group differed very little from Upper Egyptians both in terms of physical appearance as well as culture. This has been noted by previous scholars before him, which is why in some old sources Lower Nubians like those of Ta Seti and Wawat were described as not being "negro" while Upper Nubians from Kush were "negro". And then there are other sources which relegate all of Nubia as being 'black' and thus seperate from Egypt, including Qustul. These sources love emphasizing Qustul's destruction and its peoples enslavement by protodynastic Egyptians!
So many contradictions. Mainstream academia can't ignore these discrepancies for long and will eventually have to confront them. When this happens it will only be a matter of time before the issue over the identity of the Egyptians will be faced as well.
one correction-the destruction and conquest of the a-group culture happen during the 4th dynasty or around 2700 b.c.(the old kingdom of egypt)but some did survive.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again the problem stems from the very definition of 'Nubian' and its conceived distinction from Egyptian.
The whole case of Ta-Seti a.k.a. Qustul stands out as an anomaly or rather a paradox of such definitions.
According to scholars like Bruce Trigger, The A-group differed very little from Upper Egyptians both in terms of physical appearance as well as culture. This has been noted by previous scholars before him, which is why in some old sources Lower Nubians like those of Ta Seti and Wawat were described as not being "negro" while Upper Nubians from Kush were "negro". And then there are other sources which relegate all of Nubia as being 'black' and thus seperate from Egypt, including Qustul. These sources love emphasizing Qustul's destruction and its peoples enslavement by protodynastic Egyptians!
So many contradictions. Mainstream academia can't ignore these discrepancies for long and will eventually have to confront them. When this happens it will only be a matter of time before the issue over the identity of the Egyptians will be faced as well.
one correction-the destruction and conquest of the a-group culture happen during the 4th dynasty or around 2700 b.c.(the old kingdom of egypt)but some did survive.
That is the problem, not everyone agrees that this happened. The fact that the A-Group and Egyptians were SO SIMILAR, makes you wonder WHY they even came up with the name A-Group. A-Group of WHAT? There isnt enough to even IDENTIFY the A-Group from the Egyptians except possibly location, but in all reality you cannot be sure WHO the Egyptologists are referring to. This is the whole problem with this pattern of MISidentification. There were MANY warring groups in that part of the Nile before and after the founding of dynastic Egypt, so you have to take what the Egyptologists say with a grain of salt. Even THEY dont all agree on what was happening in these periods. Suffice to say people dont DISAPPEAR and I am sure that this wasnt any sort of genocide. If the A-Group were the original people of Ta Seti, there is NO DOUBT they did NOT dissappear and did NOT get destroyed.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
one correction-the destruction and conquest of the a-group culture happen during the 4th dynasty or around 2700 b.c.(the old kingdom of egypt)but some did survive.
Kenndo, just to clarify:
Are you saying that "Ta-Seti" was incorporated AFTER Lower predynastic and the Upper predynastic polities above "Ta-Seti" unified into a centralized state, in the 4th dynasty, not before then?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The fact that the A-Group and Egyptians were SO SIMILAR, makes you wonder WHY they even came up with the name A-Group. A-Group of WHAT? There isnt enough to even IDENTIFY the A-Group from the Egyptians except possibly location, but in all reality you cannot be sure WHO the Egyptologists are referring to. This is the whole problem with this pattern of MISidentification. There were MANY warring groups in that part of the Nile before and after the founding of dynastic Egypt, so you have to take what the Egyptologists say with a grain of salt. Even THEY dont all agree on what was happening in these periods. Suffice to say people dont DISAPPEAR and I am sure that this wasnt any sort of genocide. If the A-Group were the original people of Ta Seti, there is NO DOUBT they did NOT dissappear and did NOT get destroyed.
My own theory is rooted in the geographic fact that the Nile Valley doesn't really spread out and fertilise the land until north of the 1st cataract.
That's where most of the good land is.
The birth of Kemet marks the unification of the lower Nile Valley, at this time the population would have flowed down the Nile valley and concentrated in the area from the 1st cataract to the delta - where most of the arable land is.
If the picture is to be fully explained by simple conquest of Ta Seti by Ta Shemu then we would expect to have evidence of population movement INTO TA SETI from Ta Shemu at this time.
Instead we hear theory of the region becoming depopulated.
You colonise what you conquer - as "Upper Egyptians" did in the delta, you don't abandon it.
The Nile Valley above the 1st cataract was sparsely populated because the land was so bad.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
- just simple questions for clarifications.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
So many contradictions. Mainstream academia can't ignore these discrepancies for long and will eventually have to confront them. When this happens it will only be a matter of time before the issue over the identity of the Egyptians will be faced as well.
Printer-friendly view of this topic