posted
A previous topic about the 19th Egyptian family dynasty or the more recent nonsense about Kiya-the "Mitannian" beauty or for that matter regarding any Royal dynasty wherein we have these alien Pharaohs and/or Queens who miraculously appear from somewhere else, is due primarily to a lack of understanding and/or acceptance of the reality of Ancient Egyptian laws of legitimacy:
The Kemetian Matriarchy The matriarchal (matrilineal) system of society, whereby descent was through the female line was the basis of the social organization in Ancient Egypt, and indeed throughout the rest of Black Africa.
quote:
"Because of the need to ensure that the next king was born to a woman of the purest royal blood and because the role of the Great Royal Wife was of the greatest importance to the succession, the ruling king was usually married to the Great Royal Daughter (who was customarily his sister and the eldest daughter of the previous king and his Great Royal Wife). Inheritance thus passed through the female line; to substantiate his claim to the throne and gain acceptance of his own son as the next heir, each royal heir presumptive had to marry the Great Royal Daughter...Even claimants who had only tenuous links with the main royal line could legitimatize their kingship if they married the royal heiress. --Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt, p87 by Rosalie David, Oxford
Horemhab's lineage Horemhab was a descendant of an old Upper Egyptian family, who were once monarchs of Alabastronpolis; the capital of the 18th Nome of Upper Egypt (Mdu Ntr = Sep).
Horemhab's legitimacy In order to gain legal claim to the throne, Horemhab married Mutnezmat, sister of Iknaton's queen "Nefer Nefru Aton", a princess of the royal line.
Rameses II legitimacy The first priority of Rameses II was to legitimatize his position, so he traveled to Thebes, in Upper Egypt, the seat of Power. He subsequently won the support of the priests of Amon...
Rameses was the son of Seti and Queen Tuya, formerly a princess of the royal line.
The Royal Line The basis of the Kemetian line of descent and legitimacy was for the female line to be descended from the South (Nsuten: Upper Egypt/Sudan). This is expressed in the very meaning of these words and in the title of Pharaoh -- Nsu Biti -- that the matriarchy and legitimacy were derived from the "Khentu hon Nefer" or "the founders of the excellent order"-- Sudanese Africans. This is illustrated, for example, that when the alien Hyksos (Heq Kastu;Heq Shasu;Heq Sos) invaded and occupied the Delta region (IE, Biti), Kemetian royalty (IE, Nsu) retreated to the heartland to regroup and to launch a counter-attack to expel these foreigners, a process which, incidentally, took several centuries. The concept was clear, Kemetian royal legitimacy originated in the South and therefore could only be re-instated from the South. (This ideology makes laughable the designation of the 25th dynasty as the "Kushite dynasty" which was simply a re-enactment of the process of the "Hyksos" era - the restoration of Kemetian royalty and rule.)
Here we have some more evidence to get a idea of how the system works, Swaziland:
quote: King Ngwane III is said to be of special importance in the history of Swazis, as it is him who gave the nation one of its names. When his people began to settle in the present day Swaziland, they called it kaNgwane (the place or country of Ngwane). The name kaNgwane has remained to the present time, and is the one by which the Swazi people usually call themselves.
The Swazi tradition provides that the King and his mother must reign together. Thus at any given time there is a King and Indlovukazi, and two Royal Headquarters or residences. The King's residence is the administrative headquarters, and it is here that the King's day to day business is carried out.
The Indlovukazi's residence is known as umphakatsi, and is the national capital and the spiritual and ceremonial home of the nation. It is where all important national events such as the Incwala ceremony take place. The present national ca The Indlovukazi's residence is known as umphakatsi, and is the national capital and the spiritual and ceremonial home of the nation. It is where all important national events such as the Incwala ceremony take place. pital is Ludzidzini.
The oldest known Indlovukazi to whom we can attach years to her reign is Layaka Ndwandwe. The lineage of Indlovukazi in the Kingdom is as follows: Layaka Ndwandwe; Lakubheka Mndzebele; Lojiba Simelane; Tsandzile Ndwandwe; Sisile Khumalo; Tibati Nkambule; Gwamile Labotsibeni Mdluli; Lomawa Ndwandwe; Nukwase Ndwandwe; Zihlathi Ndwandwe; Seneleleni Ndwandwe; Dzeliwe Shongwe, and the present Indlovukazi, Ntombi Tfwala.
The Kemetian Matriarchy The matriarchal (matrilineal) system of society, whereby descent was through the female line was the basis of the social organization in Ancient Egypt, and indeed throughout the rest of Black Africa...
...yet when "Kemetian matriarchy" is uttered, "some" [obviously not all] pretend not to understand the context in which it is placed, by way of making claims with regards to Kemetian rulers being mostly men through much of dynastic period.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: yet when "Kemetian matriarchy" is uttered, "some" [obviously not all] pretend not to understand the context in which it is placed, by way of making claims with regards to Kemetian rulers being mostly men through much of dynastic period.
Obviously you mean ME.
Of course "matriarchy" which means rule of the mother is in reference to a political system in which women actually play the role of active leadership. Which doesn't seem to be the case in dynastic Egypt.. However there are scholars who think this may have held true during pre-dynastic times.
Also, while the royal women who were 'heiresses' or keepers of the throne were from Upper Egypt for most of dynastic history starting with the Middle Kingdom, what are we to make of the beginning of the dynastic era when the earliest royal women were all from the Delta and whose names bore that of the Delta goddess, Nit??
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, what can I say; if you call yourself out without my having to name anyone, then you must know that my comment pertains to you.
quote:Djehuti:
Of course "matriarchy" which means rule of the mother is in reference to a political system in which women actually play the role of active leadership. Which doesn't seem to be the case in dynastic Egypt.. However there are scholars who think this may have held true during pre-dynastic times.
Also, while the royal women who were 'heiresses' or keepers of the throne were from Upper Egypt for most of dynastic history starting with the Middle Kingdom, what are we to make of the beginning of the dynastic era when the earliest royal women were all from the Delta and whose names bore that of the Delta goddess, Nit??
I would have thought that since you posted an excerpt with regards to the significance of the role of the “heiress-queen” in the Kemetian political system, and corresponding misconceptions about incestuous relationships within royal families, that you’d be relatively familiar with “Kemetian matriarchy”. Recalling on that excerpt, we have:
The "heiress" theory was developed partially to explain the phenomenon, noted by Diodorus of Sicily, of brother-sister marriages in Egyptian royal family. This is a sensitive issue because it seems to imply an incestuous relationship. Some scholars believe that this was indeed the case and that royal marriages between brothers and sisters were consummated and children born. Others, however, have argued that the "marriage" was ceremonial and that there is no evidence of sexual relations between the queen and the pharaoh…
Records show that pharaohs had several "wives" of different standing within the royal bloodline. It would appear to be also the case that an heiress-queen could both be "married" to the pharaoh and also be married and have children with another man, a consort-king. The children of the pharaoh and his wives, and the children of heiress-queen and her consort-king, would all refer to the pharaoh as "father" and the heiress-queen as "mother." Evidence of this is the way that the pharaoh is always the "son" of his predecessor, even though there may be no physical link…
Power in Ancient Egypt descended through the mother's side of the royal family. The queenship was a mortal manifestation of female power and the feminine prototype, while the pharaoh represented the power of the male and the masculine prototype. The roles of the male pharaoh and the female queen were interpreted as one element in a system of complementary dualities. Many Egyptian stories and folktales revolve around the need to reconcile opposites. It was seen as necessary to maintain a balance between the male and the female. **Men are more visible in the historical record because they served as the public manifestation of the power of the (female) throne and as the administrative head of the kingdom.**
Particularly the last highlighted piece, reminds me of the question I raised elsewhere, which was:
Is anyone still questioning Kemetian "matriarchy", because the Kemetic concept for rulership cannot simply be deemed patriarchal or matriarchal?
I think Wally put it rather simply and nicely here:
There is no need to place the term matriarchy in parenthesis for its terminology is clear, even using a standard dictionary such as Websters:
quote: Main Entry: ma·tri·ar·chy Pronunciation: 'mA-trE-"är-kE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -chies 1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch 2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line
It should be obvious from my previous posts that I am referring to the #2 definition of the term, which describes the society of Kemet in particular and Black Africa in general...
here's an interesting, though unsourced quote:
quote: Ancient Egypt, a very patriarchal society today, is an example of a “matrilineal clan”. Women in Egypt seem to have enjoyed the same legal and economic rights as men, a situation which the Greeks, writing about the Egyptians, found very strange. Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BC, and who had visited Egypt, lists among their contrary customs that "women buy and sell, the men abide at home and weave". Diodorus of Sicily, who had visited Egypt some time between 60 and 56 BC, writes that the Egyptians had a law "permitting men to marry their sisters" and adds that "it was ordained that the queen should have greater power and honor than the king and that among private persons the wife should enjoy authority over her husband".
Such notions have contributed to the so-called "heiress" theory which argues that the right to the throne in Ancient Egypt was transmitted through the female line. A man, no matter what his status, the eldest son of the previous pharaoh or a commoner, became a pharaoh through his relationship to the queen. The ‘pharaohship’ was legitimized through marriage to the "heiress" who was often the pharaoh's sister or his half-sister. It has been argued, therefore, that Ancient Egypt was a matrilineal society where power resided in the female line.
There is evidence to show that the female line of inheritance was still intact in the New Kingdom (1550-1070 BCE) and, though not as strong, matrilineal descent in Ancient Egypt persisted even through the Ptolomaic period (323-30 BCE), ending finally with the death of Queen Cleopatra VII.
and another one
quote: In Ancient Egypt, as well as in all countries nowadays, the seat/throne/chair symbolizes legitimacy/authority. The principle city of a county is called "the seat of the county". The title of the chief of chiefs is called "Chairman of the Board". This is one of the countless influences of Ancient Egypt on the world, past and present.
In Egypt, however, the significance of Auset (Isis) as the seat/authority/legitimacy was the basis for Egypt's adoption of the matrilineal/matriarchal principle in their society.
Throughout Egyptian history, it was the queen who transmitted the solar blood. The queen was the true sovereign, landowner, keeper of the royalty, and guardian of the purity of the lineage. The man who married the eldest Egyptian princess claimed a right to the throne. Through marriage, she transmitted the crown to her husband-he only acted as her executive agent. This social/political law was incorporated into the Egyptian Model Story, whereby Ausar (Osiris) became the first Pharaoh of Egypt, as a result of his marrying Auset (Isis). The Pharaohs, as well as the leaders of smaller localities, adhered to this system. If the Pharaoh/leader had no daughters, a dynasty ended and a new dynasty began, with a new revered woman as a new seed for a new dynasty. The matrilineal practices also applied to the whole society, as evident from the funerary stelae of all kinds of people, where it is the usual custom to trace the descent of the deceased on the mother's side, and not on that of the father. The person's mother is specified, but not the father, or he is only mentioned incidentally. This tradition is still enduring secretly among the Baladi Egyptians.
Moustafa Gadalla
And Today! - The Akan of Ghana/Ivory Coast - No Heiress Theory!...:
quote: The Akan Civilization of the Republic of Ghana and Ivory Coast Republic has various distinguishing customs for each locality, but the overriding shared values are most important. They belong to the same language families of Kwa-speaking peoples who are organized into several kingdoms. They recognize matrilineal descent which gives the women special status in their societies because the line of rule and inheritance passes through the female, not the male. They have produced a revered ancestor tradition that is centered around a symbolic and artistically designed stool concept which represents the spiritual or soul force of the leaders and ancestors. These sacred stools are very artistically designed, and each design communicates certain positive values which the group believes to be significant. Each family clan, each village, each chief and office has its stools and they are used in rituals and considered sacred. Dr. Leonard Jeffries, Jr.
posted
^^I never disagreed with the theory of royal inheritance or lineage, just with the misuse of the term "matriarchy".
In fact, I recall it was Wally who gave a perfect explanation:
quote:Hatshepsut, a Kemetian Historical anomaly:
The reign of Queen/King Hetshepsit/Hetshepsut is in reality one of the first occurrences (there were other female rulers of Kemet) of the establishment (or re-establishment) of a Matriarchate; a society in which absolute political authority was held by a woman, and hence, women! Why, because this was a usurpation of the division of the Kemetian -or any African - society, wherein the woman was the conveyor of political power and the man was the one who wielded it. By being both the conveyor of political power and also wielding it, Hetshepsut's power was complete -- thus, a Matriarchate.
^^ Nuf said.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^I never disagreed with the theory of royal inheritance or lineage, just with the misuse of the term "matriarchy".
You've read the posts herein, with respect to Kemetian matriarchy. They are quite clear in their contexts. How could it possibly be 'misused' as presented thus far?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sobekneferu From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Nefrusobek) Persondata NAME Sobekneferu ALTERNATIVE NAMES Nefrusobek SHORT DESCRIPTION Pharaoh of Egypt DATE OF BIRTH {{{Birth}}} PLACE OF BIRTH Ancient Egypt DATE OF DEATH {{{Death}}} PLACE OF DEATH Ancient Egypt Preceded by: Amenemhat IV Pharaoh of Egypt 12th Dynasty Succeeded by: Sekhemre Khutawy or Wegaf Sobekneferu Nefrusobek Reign 1806 – 1802 BC Nomen
Sobekneferu The beauties of Sobek Praenomen
Died 1802 BC
Queen Sobekneferu (sometimes written as Nefrusobek) was the Egyptian queen of the Twelfth dynasty, who ruled without a king. Her name meant "the beauties of Sobek". Some scholars believe that she was the daughter of Pharaoh Amenemhat III; Manetho states that she was the sister of Amenemhat IV. She is the first known female ruler of Egypt, but Nitocris may have ruled in the Sixth Dynasty.
Amenemhat IV most likely died without a male heir. Consequently, Amenemhat III's daughter Sobekneferu assumed the throne. According to the Turin Canon, she only ruled Egypt for 3 Years 10 Months and 24 days. The end of her reign also concluded the Twelfth dynasty. She is not known from many monuments, though many of her (headless) statues have been preserved, and she seems to have built at the funerary complex of Amenemhat III at Hawara (called a labyrinth by Herodotus). A Nile graffito, at the Nubian fortress of Kumma records the Nile inundation height of 1.83 m in Year 3 of her reign. Her monumental works consistently associate her with Amenemhat III rather than Amenemhat IV, supporting the theory that she was the former's daughter.
Her tomb has not been positively identified, though she may have been interred in an uninscribed pyramid complex in Mazghuna, immediately north of a similar complex ascribed to Amenemhat IV.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: You've read the posts herein, with respect to Kemetian matriarchy. They are quite clear in their contexts. How could it possibly be 'misused' as presented thus far?
Again, "matriarchy" which means rule of the mother is in reference to a political system in which women actually play the role of active leadership. Which doesn't seem to be the case in dynastic Egypt..
quote:Hatshepsut, a Kemetian Historical anomaly:
The reign of Queen/King Hetshepsit/Hetshepsut is in reality one of the first occurrences (there were other female rulers of Kemet) of the establishment (or re-establishment) of a Matriarchate; a society in which absolute political authority was held by a woman, and hence, women! Why, because this was a usurpation of the division of the Kemetian -or any African - society, wherein the woman was the conveyor of political power and the man was the one who wielded it. By being both the conveyor of political power and also wielding it, Hetshepsut's power was complete -- thus, a Matriarchate.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You've read the posts herein, with respect to Kemetian matriarchy. They are quite clear in their contexts. How could it possibly be 'misused' as presented thus far?
Again, "matriarchy" which means rule of the mother is in reference to a political system in which women actually play the role of active leadership. Which doesn't seem to be the case in dynastic Egypt...
Djehuti, I'll try to describe your shortcomings as delicately as possible, by only say that, you could deliver a far more "rational" reply than this.
Having said that, once again, Wally can be counted on here, for a very simple clarification of what is being talked about and in what context:
There is no need to place the term matriarchy in parenthesis for its terminology is clear, even using a standard dictionary such as Websters:
quote: Main Entry: ma·tri·ar·chy Pronunciation: 'mA-trE-"är-kE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -chies 1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch 2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line
It should be obvious from my previous posts that I am referring to the #2 definition of the term, which describes the society of Kemet in particular and Black Africa in general…
And now, yet again, from myself:
You've read the posts herein, with respect to Kemetian matriarchy. The posts are quite clear in their contexts. How could the term "Kemetian matriarchy" possibly be 'misused' as presented thus far?
Please try your darn best not dodge this specific question the next time around. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find that matriarchy as a term seems to apply for as slight a reason as matrilineal descent even when there's no matrilineal inheritance. Also for cases of matrilocal marriage.
Of course where there is gynecocracy, as among the Kushite Arabians, there would be no doubt about so-called matriarchy.
"Surname," inheritance, homestead, authority, etc., indeed can fall within the realm of the female or the male but hardly seem to justify a conclusion of matriarchy or patriarchy. In most societies some of the above considerations are decided or held in favor of the female while others are allotted to the male. And of course there are cases where both ae duly considered.
Tieing in ideas of conquest and such lead to perilous conclusions. For instance the militant and conquering Tuareg are matrilineal. They are a case where a matriarchy is for the most part nomadic, pastoral, and warlike as was brought out earlier in the thread.
So while we can definetly point out * uterine descent * matrilineal social status inheritance * matrilineal chattel inheritance * matrilocal homesteading * gynecocarchy
I never heard of any state nation or society with all the above features. They're merely members in a list tallying the markings of a so-called "matriarchy." Any one -- or combo of -- marker(s) seems to do. Select one or mix and match and presto, according to some you have just qualified a "matriarchy."
I posit that "matriarchy" is subjective in the extreme and its continued usage really does no more than bolster bankrupt 18th and 19th century ideals about the natural evolution of civilization based on European models and their antithesis.
Specialized studies call for a specialized glossary. Hence, to be specific and unambiguous, we have precise words
matriarchal matrilineal matrilocal
in addition to those already listed, and we should use them accordingly.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Djehuti, I'll try to describe your shortcomings as delicately as possible, by only say that, you could deliver a far more "rational" reply than this.
Having said that, once again, Wally can be counted on here, for a very simple clarification of what is being talked about and in what context:
There is no need to place the term matriarchy in parenthesis for its terminology is clear, even using a standard dictionary such as Websters:
quote: Main Entry: ma·tri·ar·chy Pronunciation: 'mA-trE-"är-kE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -chies 1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch 2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line
It should be obvious from my previous posts that I am referring to the #2 definition of the term, which describes the society of Kemet in particular and Black Africa in general…
And now, yet again, from myself:
You've read the posts herein, with respect to Kemetian matriarchy. The posts are quite clear in their contexts. How could the term "Kemetian matriarchy" possibly be 'misused' as presented thus far?
Please try your darn best not dodge this specific question the next time around.
Well sorry Supe, but I did not know that the term 'matriarchy' included the definition for matrilineage also!
Really they are two different things. the 'archy' or 'archal' referring to 'by' as in a system run by.
There are cultures in which inheritance is passed through the men but are not really patriarchal.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I find that matriarchy as a term seems to apply for as slight a reason as matrilineal descent even when there's no matrilineal inheritance. Also for cases of matrilocal marriage.
That's what I mean. There seems to be a confusion with all these terms.
quote:Of course where there is gynecocracy, as among the Kushite Arabians, there would be no doubt about so-called matriarchy.
I am unfamilar with the term gynecocracy. What is the difference between that and matriarchy?
I am even more unfamilar with these "Kushite Arabians" you speak of. May you please explain who they are??
quote:"Surname," inheritance, homestead, authority, etc., indeed can fall within the realm of the female or the male but hardly seem to justify a conclusion of matriarchy or patriarchy. In most societies some of the above considerations are decided or held in favor of the female while others are allotted to the male. And of course there are cases where both ae duly considered.
EXACTLY what I mean! Lineage or inheritance have little or nothing to do with matriarchy or patriarchy. And I am very aware of bilineal descent where both male and female lineages are acknowledged.
quote:Tieing in ideas of conquest and such lead to perilous conclusions. For instance the militant and conquering Tuareg are matrilineal. They are a case where a matriarchy is for the most part nomadic, pastoral, and warlike as was brought out earlier in the thread.
Indeed! In fact another perfect example would be some Tibetan peoples who are also nomadic and pastoral and very warlike yet whose women are in high positions of government and power.
quote:So while we can definetly point out * uterine descent * matrilineal social status inheritance * matrilineal chattel inheritance * matrilocal homesteading * gynecocarchy
I never heard of any state nation or society with all the above features. They're merely members in a list tallying the markings of a so-called "matriarchy." Any one -- or combo of -- marker(s) seems to do. Select one or mix and match and presto, according to some you have just qualified a "matriarchy."
I agree. Although there lacks a precise definition, the definition of matriarchy that I'm aware of is when women take an active role in ruling or governing.
What are we to make of the female tribal chiefs whom Livingstone encountered in the Congo?
quote:I posit that "matriarchy" is subjective in the extreme and its continued usage really does no more than bolster bankrupt 18th and 19th century ideals about the natural evolution of civilization based on European models and their antithesis.
I agree with this also. What are we to make of 'patriarchy' then? Does patriarchy mark "progression" of a culture? If so, what are we to make of recent trend in Western societies of women's rights and women's movement?
quote:Specialized studies call for a specialized glossary. Hence, to be specific and unambiguous, we have precise words
matriarchal matrilineal matrilocal
in addition to those already listed, and we should use them accordingly.
Couldn't agree more with this! Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Djehuti, I'll try to describe your shortcomings as delicately as possible, by only say that, you could deliver a far more "rational" reply than this.
Having said that, once again, Wally can be counted on here, for a very simple clarification of what is being talked about and in what context:
There is no need to place the term matriarchy in parenthesis for its terminology is clear, even using a standard dictionary such as Websters:
quote: Main Entry: ma·tri·ar·chy Pronunciation: 'mA-trE-"är-kE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -chies 1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch 2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line
It should be obvious from my previous posts that I am referring to the #2 definition of the term, which describes the society of Kemet in particular and Black Africa in general…
And now, yet again, from myself:
You've read the posts herein, with respect to Kemetian matriarchy. The posts are quite clear in their contexts. How could the term "Kemetian matriarchy" possibly be 'misused' as presented thus far?
Please try your darn best not dodge this specific question the next time around.
Well sorry Supe, but I did not know that the term 'matriarchy' included the definition for matrilineage also!
Well, now you know, I hope. And of course, you realize that in this instance, we are talking about "inheritance", which could well be either through matrilineal biological descent or "arranged" symbolic unions involving the pharaoh and the heiress-queen. It is in this context, that Kemetian matriarchy is mentioned herein, and you know it; it is precise and concise.
I have already pointed out that Kemetian governance cannot simplistically be deemed either patriarchal or matriarchal, simply because of the point I made earlier, which was that, the legitimization of rulership had to come through matrilineal inheritance, even though throughout much of dynastic Egypt, pharaohs were predominantly males. Still, there were several female pharaohs in Egypt. Additionally, as I have reiterated time and again, even in the circles of ordinary Kemetians, women were given significant inheritance power through marriages, and that much of the local social discrimination was on a class basis than male vs. female. This of course, doesn't imply that Kemetian society was entirely progressive, i.e. not having reactionary elements to it, but that the social-system in place cannot easily be placed into the patriarchal camp or the matriarchal one. However, we are very clear on the preconditions for legitimizing rulership, as has already been spelt out numerous times now. Having said that, I noticed how my last question remains unaddressed.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Well, now you know, I hope. And of course, you realize that in this instance, we are talking about "inheritance", which could well be either through matrilineal biological descent or "arranged" symbolic unions involving the pharaoh and the heiress-queen. It is in this context, that Kemetian matriarchy is mentioned herein, and you know it; it is precise and concise.
I agree about the Kemetian system of inheritance, but not the terminology.
quote:I have already pointed out that Kemetian governance cannot simplistically be deemed either patriarchal or matriarchal, simply because of the point I made earlier, which was that, the legitimization of rulership had to come through matrilineal inheritance, even though throughout much of dynastic Egypt, pharaohs were predominantly males. Still, there were several female pharaohs in Egypt. Additionally, as I have reiterated time and again, even in the circles of ordinary Kemetians, women were given significant inheritance power through marriages, and that much of the local social discrimination was on a class basis than male vs. female. This of course, doesn't imply that Kemetian society was entirely progressive, i.e. not having reactionary elements to it, but that the social-system in place cannot easily be placed into the patriarchal camp or the matriarchal one. However, we are very clear on the preconditions for legitimizing rulership, as has already been spelt out numerous times now. Having said that, I noticed how my last question remains unaddressed.
I agree with the above. I never said that dynastic Egypt was 'patriarchal' simply because the active ruler was male. In a true patriarchy, males preside and govern every aspect of life including the household and females are suppressed. This definitely wasn't the case with ancient Kemet. Although as Takruri states, terms that describe gender positions in a society like 'matriarchy', 'matricy', 'gynecocarchy', and the like can be confusing and need much examination.
Ancient Tibet was considered a matriarchal land, yet not all positions of authority were left to women, and the men were not suppressed. In fact, there is yet to be found a matriarchal society in which men are truly suppressed and degraded as in the Greek tales of the Amazons.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, now you know, I hope. And of course, you realize that in this instance, we are talking about "inheritance", which could well be either through matrilineal biological descent or "arranged" symbolic unions involving the pharaoh and the heiress-queen. It is in this context, that Kemetian matriarchy is mentioned herein, and you know it; it is precise and concise.
I agree about the Kemetian system of inheritance, but not the terminology.
Djehuti, you should know by now, that my aim isn't so much as to make you accept or "agree" with what was presented [it never is my aim], but rather, to prove you wrong; you've been proven wrong, and you've even admitted it. What more would anyone ask for.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Nothing accept that the terminology in the way it is used is misconcieving. The very word "matriarchy" gives no indication inheritance or lineage only rule or government.
And I thought YOU of all people have known by now that terms, epecially those concieved by Europeans, can be confusing simply because it is inaccurate.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Nothing accept that the terminology in the way it is used is misconcieving.
You are not making any sense; you understand what you are being told, and yet, you still have no clue.
quote:Djehuti:
The very word "matriarchy" gives no indication inheritance or lineage only rule or government.
I earlier on reposted Wally's dictionary reference:
Main Entry: ma·tri·ar·chy Pronunciation: 'mA-trE-"är-kE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -chies 1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch 2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line
And Djehuti replies:
Well sorry Supe, but I did not know that the term 'matriarchy' included the definition for matrilineage also!
That you don't know is one thing; that you've been informed, and refuse to learn what you didn't know, is another thing. Frankly, with respect to the latter, that is a sad state of affairs on your part.
quote:Djehuti:
And I thought YOU of all people have known by now that terms, epecially those concieved by Europeans, can be confusing simply because it is inaccurate.
Gibberish! This game of, "the term is European, and hence wrong", doesn't apply in each and every case. You've been given uses of the term, as it would be represented in a dictionary. Do you have an objective literal support to the contrary, that the said term cannot be utilized as such? If English isn't your basis for the said term, then what is? LOL.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: You are not making any sense; you understand what you are being told, and yet, you still have no clue.
No clue about what?-- that the term is misconceiving??
This is like saying patriarchy has a second definition which means descent or iheritance is passed through the male line. There are tribes in Tibet that follow descent through males even though females hold considerable influence and power in the clan. Should such societies be called a 'patriarchy'?
quote:
quote:Djehuti:
The very word "matriarchy" gives no indication inheritance or lineage only rule or government.
I earlier on reposted Wally's dictionary reference:
Main Entry: ma·tri·ar·chy Pronunciation: 'mA-trE-"är-kE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -chies 1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch 2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line
And Djehuti replies:
Well sorry Supe, but I did not know that the term 'matriarchy' included the definition for matrilineage also!
That you don't know is one thing; that you've been informed, and refuse to learn what you didn't know, is another thing. Frankly, with respect to the latter, that is a sad state of affairs on your part.
LOL And exactly what is it that I "refuse to learn"?? I acknowledge that the definition exist but I just don't agree with it, and so do many anthropologists and ethnologists!! Perhaps they are in a "sad state of affairs" also??
quote:Gibberish! This game of, "the term is European, and hence wrong", doesn't apply in each and every case. You've been given uses of the term, as it would be represented in a dictionary. Do you have an objective literal support to the contrary, that the said term cannot be utilized as such? If English isn't your basis for the said term, then what is? LOL.
LMAO Who do you have me confused with?.. Clyde?!..
I never stated that just because a term was European it was wrong, only that it doesn't mean it wasn't necessarily right or accurate also considering that it is a culture that does not possess what it describes.
The term matriarchy is Greek and can be broken down in 'matri' and 'archy'. Matri refers to mother, so what does the 'archy' mean?
-archy suff. Rule; government ex: oligarchy. derived from Greek.
Thus matriarchy literally means 'rule by the mother'.
Of course a term can have extra definitions that have been added later on. Usually cultures that are matriarchal tend to be matrilineal, but there are exceptions as rule or lineage are two different things.
al Takruri has already explained the fallacies and misgivings of the usage of such a term and others like it! Yet you "scold" me in vain.
Really Supe, if I didn't know any better I'd say that smug arrogance has gotten the better of you...again
Perhaps it is YOU who hates to be wrong. Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are not making any sense; you understand what you are being told, and yet, you still have no clue.
No clue about what?-- that the term is misconceiving??
This is like saying patriarchy has a second definition which means descent or iheritance is passed through the male line. There are tribes in Tibet that follow descent through males even though females hold considerable influence and power in the clan. Should such societies be called a 'patriarchy'?
Red herring. Apparently, you didn't understand what was being said the first time around, when you claimed to have understood...
I have already pointed out that Kemetian governance cannot simplistically be deemed either patriarchal or matriarchal, simply because of the point I made earlier, which was that, the legitimization of rulership had to come through matrilineal inheritance, even though throughout much of dynastic Egypt, pharaohs were predominantly males. Still, there were several female pharaohs in Egypt. Additionally, as I have reiterated time and again, even in the circles of ordinary Kemetians, women were given significant inheritance power through marriages, and that much of the local social discrimination was on a class basis than male vs. female. This of course, doesn't imply that Kemetian society was entirely progressive, i.e. not having reactionary elements to it, but that the social-system in place cannot easily be placed into the patriarchal camp or the matriarchal one.
Bottom line: Enhance your reading skills.
quote:Djehuti:
quote:Supercar:
I earlier on reposted Wally's dictionary reference:
Main Entry: ma·tri·ar·chy Pronunciation: 'mA-trE-"är-kE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -chies 1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch 2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line
And Djehuti replies:
Well sorry Supe, but I did not know that the term 'matriarchy' included the definition for matrilineage also!
That you don't know is one thing; that you've been informed, and refuse to learn what you didn't know, is another thing. Frankly, with respect to the latter, that is a sad state of affairs on your part.
LOL And exactly what is it that I "refuse to learn"?? I acknowledge that the definition exist but I just don't agree with it, and so do many anthropologists and ethnologists!! Perhaps they are in a "sad state of affairs" also??
Precisely the point: you know the definition exists, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
quote:Djehuti:
LMAO Who do you have me confused with?.. Clyde?!..
I never stated that just because a term was European it was wrong, only that it doesn't mean it wasn't necessarily right or accurate also considering that it is a culture that does not possess what it describes.
The term matriarchy is Greek and can be broken down in 'matri' and 'archy'. Matri refers to mother, so what does the 'archy' mean?
-archy suff. Rule; government ex: oligarchy. derived from Greek.
Thus matriarchy literally means 'rule by the mother'.
Of course a term can have extra definitions that have been added later on. Usually cultures that are matriarchal tend to be matrilineal, but there are exceptions as rule or lineage are two different things.
al Takruri has already explained the fallacies and misgivings of the usage of such a term and others like it! Yet you "scold" me in vain.
Really Supe, if I didn't know any better I'd say that smug arrogance has gotten the better of you...again
Djehuti, perhaps you are too dense to understand what has been presented thus far. But let me see if I can put it another way:
Your distractive semantic gymnastics aside, do you understand what has been presented and in what contexts? Because...if not, I'll gladly remind you. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Red herring. Apparently, you didn't understand what was being said the first time around, when you claimed to have understood...
I have already pointed out that Kemetian governance cannot simplistically be deemed either patriarchal or matriarchal, simply because of the point I made earlier, which was that, the legitimization of rulership had to come through matrilineal inheritance, even though throughout much of dynastic Egypt, pharaohs were predominantly males. Still, there were several female pharaohs in Egypt. Additionally, as I have reiterated time and again, even in the circles of ordinary Kemetians, women were given significant inheritance power through marriages, and that much of the local social discrimination was on a class basis than male vs. female. This of course, doesn't imply that Kemetian society was entirely progressive, i.e. not having reactionary elements to it, but that the social-system in place cannot easily be placed into the patriarchal camp or the matriarchal one.
Bottom line: Enhance your reading skills.
I think you need to work on YOUR reading skills because I never disagreed with the above and it was my very agreement with it that questioned the very use of the term 'matriarchy'.
quote:Supercar:
Precisely the point: you know the definition exists, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
LOL Acknowledgement and agreement are two different things. If the definition exists, then of course I acknowledge it. But of course I disagree with it for the reasons I cited as well as Wally and even YOU.
quote:Djehuti, perhaps you are too dense to understand what has been presented thus far. But let me see if I can put it another way:
Your distractive semantic gymnastics aside, do you understand what has been presented and in what contexts? Because...if not, I'll gladly remind you.
Nope. Sorry, but the only one performing semantic gymnastics is YOU. I have already made my point about the basis of the word. I'm sure others reading this thread understand it also. So you can complain all you want. Que sera sera Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Robert Briffault The Mothers (3 volumes): A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions; or The Matriarchal Theory of Social Origins London: Allen & Unwin, 1927 or New York: Macmillan, 1931.
Old as it is, it remains the best set of tomes that I know about on female societal impact and roles, calling on and based on examples from just about every society world wide at varied times.
Everyone please chime in with other anthropological specific pertinent works on "matri" importance.
Red herring. Apparently, you didn't understand what was being said the first time around, when you claimed to have understood...
I have already pointed out that Kemetian governance cannot simplistically be deemed either patriarchal or matriarchal, simply because of the point I made earlier, which was that, the legitimization of rulership had to come through matrilineal inheritance, even though throughout much of dynastic Egypt, pharaohs were predominantly males. Still, there were several female pharaohs in Egypt. Additionally, as I have reiterated time and again, even in the circles of ordinary Kemetians, women were given significant inheritance power through marriages, and that much of the local social discrimination was on a class basis than male vs. female. This of course, doesn't imply that Kemetian society was entirely progressive, i.e. not having reactionary elements to it, but that the social-system in place cannot easily be placed into the patriarchal camp or the matriarchal one.
Bottom line: Enhance your reading skills.
I think you need to work on YOUR reading skills because I never disagreed with the above and it was my very agreement with it that questioned the very use of the term 'matriarchy'.
You are not only experiencing a deficit in reading skills, but also in denial. Case in point, you were clearly told the contexts in which my comments were made, as amply demonstrated in the citation above, and yet you go on with your claptraps about "societies" being considered "patriarchy". Any literate person will notice the vast difference between your red herrings and my position.
quote:Djehuti:
quote:Supercar:
Precisely the point: you know the definition exists, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
LOL Acknowledgement and agreement are two different things. If the definition exists, then of course I acknowledge it. But of course I disagree with it for the reasons I cited as well as Wally and even YOU.
There lies the keyword, "exist"; the definition "exists", and hence, your whining about Wally's usage of the term not being understood within the specific context it was placed, is just a useless distractive antic indicative of an amateur. Whether you "accept" it or not, is your prerogative; it doesn't diminish the point being made.
quote:Djehuti:
Nope. Sorry, but the only one performing semantic gymnastics is YOU.
Parroting phrases without a clue. LOL. How does my point about "Kemetian matriarchy," as put forth in its very specific context, ought to be understood, suddenly amount to semantic gymnastics, when it is you who has been crying for days about the 'term' used?
quote:Djehuti:
I have already made my point about the basis of the word. I'm sure others reading this thread understand it also. So you can complain all you want. Que sera sera
You've made no point, other than taking things out of the context in which they had been placed, as I have amply demonstrated , and engaging in your senseless semantic acrobatics. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
blah, blah, blah. Whatever dude. You can argue 'semantics', 'acrobatic', and juggling. My point has already been made. Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
As in most developing countries, there is a strong extended family system. Poorer members may seek financial assistance from their better off relatives for school fees, medical expenses etc. But visitors are always welcomed, even if their arrival may be a cause of financial concern. In Asante, the family line is matralineal - in that it passes through the mother to her children. A man is strongly related to his mother's brother but only weakly related to his father's brother. This must be viewed in the context of a polygamous society in which the mother/child bond is likely to be much stronger than the father/child bond. As a result, in inheritance, a man's nephew (sister's son) will have priority over his own son. Uncle-nephew relationships therefore assume a dominant position. (Legislation was introduced in 1984 to change this traditional pattern of inheritance.)
Inheritance and Succession The principles governing inheritance stress sex generation and age – that is to say, men come before women and seniors before juniors. Even though the general terminilogy is one of nephew-inheritance (matrilineal) the nephew is sometimes not an automatic successor to his uncle. Very often, the property or stool in question has to move, step by step, to the last male inheritor (brother) before passing on to a male son of a female member of the mother’s family.
It is when all possible make heirs have been exhausted that the females are sought after. Among the females the order is:
1 sister
2 eldest sister’s daughter
3 sister’s daughter’s daughter
This is the line of inheritance of an individual person’s property or a chief’s stool. What needs to be mentioned here is that the character of the person to inherit is also an essential determining factor. This is because no family (Abusua) will allow a drunkard or a thief or a spendthrift, for instance, to succeed to property or a stool of a deceased rich man or eminent chief for fear that he might dissipate the wealth or bring the stool into disrepute or even discrete it.
Marriage by Consent The Ashanti man takes a lot of things into consideration before getting married. Union by marriage is too important to trivial treatment. The parents of a daughter must hand over the human life in their care to a really responsible custodian. No daughter will accept an offer of marriage from any an without the consent of her parents. "If my parents agree to your proposal, I shall have no objection," she will say. In practice parents choose wives and husbands for their sons and daughters. It is their responsibility to be able to solve the initial problems (with all their implications) in a lasting tie like marriage. Resulting from war efforts, the woman is the custodian of the children of the marriage and they are, in essence, hers. they claim clanship through their mother and to a larger extent, inheritance, especially since the land, the Ashanti's precious property, is known to belong to the woman and not the man But then comes the adage that if a woman weaves a shield, she stores it in a man's room. in other words what every woman acquires must belong to a man.. Marriage therefore plays an important part in the communal life of the Ashanti Nation (Asanteman), Many Ashanti wives have become known to their husbands for the first time in their first meeting as man and wife. And yet divorce is almost unknown in a true Ashanti community. Parents on both side have a duty to keep the marriage going or else break the marriage with the resultant break or a life-long tie not only between the couple but the two families. All marital leakage likely to flood and demolish the structure of a community are quickly blocked. " aware annya akyigyin a, egu." Meaning - It is the marriage that has no backing that breaks. All marriages, once contracted, should be self supporting.
quote: The Ashanti Family unit As in most developing countries, there is a strong extended family system. Poorer members may seek financial assistance from their better off relatives for school fees, medical expenses etc. But visitors are always welcomed, even if their arrival may be a cause of financial concern. In Asante, the family line is matralineal - in that it passes through the mother to her children. A man is strongly related to his mother's brother but only weakly related to his father's brother...
The article continues to delineate the relationships within the Ashanti culture. Which is, in summary, essentially the main thesis of this topic...
quote: The Kemetian Matriarchy The matriarchal (matrilineal) system of society, whereby descent was through the female line was the basis of the social organization in Ancient Egypt, and indeed throughout the rest of Black Africa.
...now, I understand that discussion is the primary reason for this forum, but it seems pointless to begin totally irrelevant talk about textbook definitions of "Matriarchy or Matrilineal or ..." We could very well describe Ashanti as an "Ashantiarchy!" The point is how this type of society is typical of Black Africa, and why certain "Female Royals" in Ancient Kemet would certainly NOT be from "Mitannia" or "Mars." That's the point; not contemporary dictionary definitions...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: blah, blah, blah. Whatever dude. You can argue 'semantics', 'acrobatic', and juggling. My point has already been made.
Thanks for vindicating me, in that, learning to speak human language is a challenge that you are gonna have to allow yourself to confront. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^LOL My friend, I think you deluded yourself into thinking I somehow "vindicated" you.
Sorry, but again my point has been made a long time ago. I will not argue any longer. If you don't want to accept the validity of my claims then so be it. I'm sure other intelligent posters understand what I am saying.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^^LOL My friend, I think you deluded yourself into thinking I somehow "vindicated" you.
Sorry, but again my point has been made a long time ago. I will not argue any longer. If you don't want to accept the validity of my claims then so be it. I'm sure other intelligent posters understand what I am saying.
You are correct, in that, you've certainly expended much of your energy in making "a" point about trolling, and missing the gist of the topic, as Wally correctly points out. No perceptive or serious individual will see your senseless whining/ramblings about a term as having any bearings on the issue at hand.
Red herring. Apparently, you didn't understand what was being said the first time around, when you claimed to have understood...
I have already pointed out that Kemetian governance cannot simplistically be deemed either patriarchal or matriarchal, simply because of the point I made earlier, which was that, the legitimization of rulership had to come through matrilineal inheritance, even though throughout much of dynastic Egypt, pharaohs were predominantly males. Still, there were several female pharaohs in Egypt. Additionally, as I have reiterated time and again, even in the circles of ordinary Kemetians, women were given significant inheritance power through marriages, and that much of the local social discrimination was on a class basis than male vs. female. This of course, doesn't imply that Kemetian society was entirely progressive, i.e. not having reactionary elements to it, but that the social-system in place cannot easily be placed into the patriarchal camp or the matriarchal one.
Bottom line: Enhance your reading skills.
I think you need to work on YOUR reading skills because I never disagreed with the above and it was my very agreement with it that questioned the very use of the term 'matriarchy'.
You are not only experiencing a deficit in reading skills, but also in denial. Case in point, you were clearly told the contexts in which my comments were made, as amply demonstrated in the citation above, and yet you go on with your claptraps about "societies" being considered "patriarchy". Any literate person will notice the vast difference between your red herrings and my position.
quote:Djehuti:
quote:Supercar:
Precisely the point: you know the definition exists, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
LOL Acknowledgement and agreement are two different things. If the definition exists, then of course I acknowledge it. But of course I disagree with it for the reasons I cited as well as Wally and even YOU.
There lies the keyword, "exist"; the definition "exists", and hence, your whining about Wally's usage of the term not being understood within the specific context it was placed, is just a useless distractive antic indicative of an amateur. Whether you "accept" it or not, is your prerogative; it doesn't diminish the point being made.
quote:Djehuti:
Nope. Sorry, but the only one performing semantic gymnastics is YOU.
Parroting phrases without a clue. LOL. How does my point about "Kemetian matriarchy," as put forth in its very specific context, ought to be understood, suddenly amount to semantic gymnastics, when it is you who has been crying for days about the 'term' used?
quote:Djehuti:
I have already made my point about the basis of the word. I'm sure others reading this thread understand it also. So you can complain all you want. Que sera sera
You've made no point, other than taking things out of the context in which they had been placed, as I have amply demonstrated , and engaging in your senseless semantic acrobatics.
LMFAO!!!
this website rocks
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Obviously you mean ME.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic