posted
Abstract (Document Summary) Ancient Egypt is the first major civilization in Africa for which records are abundant. It was not, however, Africa's first kingdom. On 1 Mar 1, 1979, Boyce Rensberger of The New York Times wrote that evidence of the oldest recognizable monarchy in human history, preceding the rise of the earliest Egyptian kings by several generations, has been discovered in artifacts from ancient Nubia. This ancient kingdom, generally called Ta-Seti, encompassed the territory of the northern Sudan and the southern portion of Egypt.
Full Text (268 words)
Copyright International Communications Oct 2006
Ancient Egypt is the first major civilisation in Africa for which records are abundant. It was not, however, Africa's first kingdom. On 1 March 1979, The New York Times carried an article on its front page, written by Boyce Rensberger, with the headline: Nubian Monarchy called Oldest. In the article, Rensberger told the world that: "Evidence of the oldest recognisable monarchy in human history, preceding the rise of the earliest Egyptian kings by several generations, has been discovered in artifacts from ancient Nubia... The discovery is expected to stimulate a new appraisal of the origins of civilisations in Africa, raising the question of 'to what extent later Egyptian culture derived its advanced political structure from the Nubians?'."
This ancient kingdom, generally called Ta-Seti, encompassed the territory of the northern Sudan and the southern portion of Egypt. It has sometimes been referred to as Ancient Ethiopia in some of the literature, and as Cush (or Kush) in other literature. The first kings of Ta-Seti may well have ruled about 5900 BC. During the time of the fifth generation of their rulers, Upper (ie, southern) Egypt may have united and became a greater threat to Ta-Seti.
In Kush (or Ta-Seti), a number of women had the title Kentake, which means Queen Mother, and was recorded in Roman sources as Candace. Some of the women were heads of state. Kentake Qalhata (c.639 BC) had her own pyramid built at Al Kurru, as other Kushite kings did (above photo). Pseudo-Callisthenes mentions that Alexander the Great visited "Candace, the black Queen of Meroe" in the 4th century. She was apparently a "wondrous beauty".
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intrusting stuff my man, but um, if Im correct there has been recent excavations that's led researchers to conclude that there were contemporaneous "kingdoms" in both Ta-Seti and Upper Egypt during this period, so it's more likely that both civilizations drew from an even MORE ANCIENT source, like the Sahara desert. That still doesn't rule out early nubians contributing to the rise of egypt, the white crown was something that passed from the nubians to the upper egyptians, and possibly the serekh. And Ta-Seti was the most powerful of the kingdoms in this period, right?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ta-Seti precedes Kemet. Ta-Seti was also the 1st nome of Kemet. Therefore they can't really be conceived of as either mutually exclusive or contemporaneous entities.
Also, in MDW NTR, "Nubia" [Nubti] references a city in Ta Shemu [Upper Egypt], and never references any kingdom south of Egypt, nor is it equivelant to Ta Seti.
I know it's hard but where possible we have to try to get to what was originally written by the Kemetians, and not just repeat the structure Ws.t scholars have recently created, which is to service their mythology, not to facilitate understanding of African history - two different agenda, which *are* mutually exclusive.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ta-Seti precedes Kemet how? In terms of a unified state you mean? Um Qustul was only nubia to the 2nd catarct and that was hardly all of Nubia. As I said before, upper egypt and nubia (tired of calling it ta-seti by now lol) had their first respective kingdoms at around the same time, in the neighborhood of 3300 BC, and this is mentioned in a study of Keita's. As a said before, it's hardly suprising what I mentioned above since BOTH egypt and nubia had nearly identical cultures, and were racially (Im sure you know this by now lol)the same. peace .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ta-Seti precedes Kemet how? In terms of a unified state you mean?
Kemet *is* the unified state. Prior to unification there is no Kemet. Ta Seti precedes Kemet. Ta Seti is the 1st nome of Kemet.
quote: Qustul was only nubia to the 2nd catarct
This is exactly the kind of unthinking parroting of nonsense discourse we need to graduate beyound.
Qustal is a city and archeological site, and is *not* a geographical region.
quote:upper egypt and nubia (tired of calling it ta-seti by now
Yes, I know, thinking is hard, easier to parrot nonsense.
Ta Seti is precisely the Kingdom referenced in the records found at Qustal, which contains the oldest record of kingship lines or 'dynasties' in the world.
quote: As a said before, it's hardly suprising what I mentioned above since BOTH egypt and nubia had nearly identical cultures
Sorry, no Egypt {kemet} prior to 3,300 BC.... but the dynastic line of Ta Seti goes back to perhaps 3,800 BC = 5,800~ ya.
posted
Rasol is correct in saying that Ta-Seti polities preceded "Kmt", which was supposed to have been reference to the "unified" or "centralized" large Nile Valley polity, and Obelisk_18, had he not used the terms like "Upper Egypt" and "BOTH egypt and nubia had nearly identical cultures", would have been correct about 'contemporaneous' polities in pre-dynastic Upper Egypt in the so-called Nagadan complexes and Ta-Seti prior to creation of the centralized state of "Kmt" or "ancient Egypt". And yes, there are apparent Ta-Seti influences in dynastic Egypt, as attested to by the likes of the 'white crown'. The poster 'Sundiata' posted on this before, and I had addressed it then in "The Crowns of Kemet" thread.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
im going to go with rasol on this one too. touregypt like to make striking resemblences of egypt's state formation to the united states state formation which i find odd because there was no concept of the u.s., just british colonies in which the founding bases of the us government, society and civilization has british undertones. I dont know how many people i talked to who went to england and said that they can see where the american culture came from. In those reports they remind me of the egyptian ruler who saw jebel al-barkal. the info of the nile valley culture is too exhaustive. This reminds me of when a person goes to virginia near jamestown area he will see the second british colony that was ever established and preceeds any colony after it by 13 yrs. there you will see the model of southern culture. the head hallmark. near to the capital of the modern state(u.s.) from there colonies pop up around the same area(atlantic coast) pushing on later inland(westwards). I see this with ta-seti and its dynamic cultural influence on the nomes that are to come after ta-seti all the way up to the the great green sea. according to diodorus the aethiops told him that egypt was a colony. could he have been speaking on the ta-setiau establishing civilization down to the marshes. who else possesed the finances of gold,silver,and etc. who else could muster up an army from different ethnic backgrounds. Im beginning to agree with mahmoud godalla on the fact that kush and ta seti and ta shemu a were already existing states who came to be a confederation to be called kemet who would rule the kemet and the deshret. majority of the remnants of kemet culture are southern based anyway like all remants of colonial life are east coast based showing its origin.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Rasol is correct in saying that Ta-Seti polities preceded "Kmt", which was supposed to have been reference to the "unified" or "centralized" large Nile Valley polity, and Obelisk_18, had he not used the terms like "Upper Egypt" and "BOTH egypt and nubia had nearly identical cultures", would have been correct about 'contemporaneous' polities in pre-dynastic Upper Egypt in the so-called Nagadan complexes and Ta-Seti prior to creation of the centralized state of "Kmt" or "ancient Egypt". And yes, there are apparent Ta-Seti influences in dynastic Egypt, as attested to by the likes of the 'white crown'. The poster 'Sundiata' posted on this before, and I had addressed it then in "The Crowns of Kemet" thread.
So Mystery Solver WHAT EXACTLY do you mean by Nubia preceding Kemet? You mean Nubia (or at least the northern part of it) was a centralized state before egypt or what? And I already mentioned that the white crown has its origins in Nubia, and the red crown possibly could as well, and you forgot to mention the serekh also has its earliest representation in Qustul, so it seems the "upper egyptians" imported quite a lot of iconography from their southern brethren. get back to me. Peace .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Rasol is correct in saying that Ta-Seti polities preceded "Kmt", which was supposed to have been reference to the "unified" or "centralized" large Nile Valley polity, and Obelisk_18, had he not used the terms like "Upper Egypt" and "BOTH egypt and nubia had nearly identical cultures", would have been correct about 'contemporaneous' polities in pre-dynastic Upper Egypt in the so-called Nagadan complexes and Ta-Seti prior to creation of the centralized state of "Kmt" or "ancient Egypt". And yes, there are apparent Ta-Seti influences in dynastic Egypt, as attested to by the likes of the 'white crown'. The poster 'Sundiata' posted on this before, and I had addressed it then in "The Crowns of Kemet" thread.
So Mystery Solver WHAT EXACTLY do you mean by Nubia preceding Kemet?
Where - citation?
Outside of quoting you on "Nubia", not a mention of the term in what you just cited.
quote:Obelisk_18:
You mean Nubia (or at least the northern part of it) was a centralized state before egypt or what?
Where - citation?
quote:Obelisk_18:
And I already mentioned that the white crown has its origins in Nubia, and the red crown possibly could as well, and you forgot to mention the serekh also has its earliest representation in Qustul, so it seems the "upper egyptians" imported quite a lot of iconography from their southern brethren. get back to me. Peace
Yes, I've made note of White/Hedjet crown strongly indicating Ta-Seti influence, but I haven't come across the same for the Red/Deshret Crown, which was more prevalent and earliest attested to in the Nagadan complex prior to the appearance of the 'white crown' in that region. Again, reference "The Crowns of Kemet" thread; these things have already been touched on.
As for Serekhs, Dreyer also came across those in the predynastic Abydos Royal cemetery U-J:
posted
alright alright mystery solver, WHAT exactly do you mean by Ta-seti preceding Kemet? can you just explain that to me... lol...
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: alright alright mystery solver, WHAT exactly do you mean by Ta-seti preceding Kemet? can you just explain that to me... lol...
Ta-Seti had an autonomous polity in the predynastic era stretching back to the so-called A-Group elites, whereas "Kmt" is reference to the unified nation of ancient Egypt. In other words, polities in Ta-Seti existed before the forming of Dynastic Egypt - it's that simple.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and wasnt Ta-Seti the most powerful of "The Nile kingdoms" in the predynastic? I think I read that somewhere..... and do you think that the egyptian state ultimately sprang from nubia or what?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: and wasnt Ta-Seti the most powerful of "The Nile kingdoms" in the predynastic?
Their considerably rich royal elite burial sites suggests that the Ta-Seti was no small polity [although, there may have been some relatively smaller polity(s) in the uppermost reaches of Ta-Seti - not quite certain about it], but likely one with considerable political influence in the region, given their strategic location between Nagada and complexes further south, beyond upper Ta-Seti - access to resources from further south.
quote:obelisk_18:
I think I read that somewhere..... and do you think that the egyptian state ultimately sprang from nubia or what?
Much influence had come from predynastic upper Egyptian complexes [Ta-Seti and Nagada], but also from eastern Sahara. It sprang from a Nilo-Saharan [not talking about the so-called language family, but a short way of saying in situ Nile Valley and Saharan socio-cultural fusions] base.
Ps - of course, although not to the same extent as those from their predynastic Upper Egyptian counterparts, lower predynastic Egyptian culture had also been absorbed into Dynastic Egypt.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why would you desire to hang on to the term "Nubia" which is such an aid in confusion?
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Ta-Seti precedes Kemet. Ta-Seti was also the 1st nome of Kemet. Therefore they can't really be conceived of as either mutually exclusive or contemporaneous entities.
To me, rasol laid it all out here.^
quote:Also, in MDW NTR, "Nubia" [Nubti] references a city in Ta Shemu [Upper Egypt], and never references any kingdom south of Egypt, nor is it equivelant to Ta Seti.
A new fact!
quote: I know it's hard but where possible we have to try to get to what was originally written by the Kemetians, and not just repeat the structure Ws.t scholars have recently created, which is to service their mythology, not to facilitate understanding of African history - two different agenda, which *are* mutually exclusive.
Yeah I know.
I hate using Nubia and I'm going to use this new fact.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}: Obelisk 2 things:
Why would you desire to hang on to the term "Nubia" which is such an aid in confusion?
Nubia is the apartheid discourse in history.
Apartheid in South Africa is the ideology whereby Europeans claim African land.
Apartheid in Eurocentric pseudo-history is the ideology whereby Europeans claim ancient Afriacn civilisations.
Africans learn this discourse from Europeans.
By thinking critically, we can examine the evidence and easily deconstruct the apartheid discourse.
But there are some who actually 'cling' to the lies they learn, simply because it's what they were taught, and following what you were originally taught is the easiest thing to do.
It's a sheeplike response, and most cults, brainwashing, and cultural/nationalist propaganda depend upon this response.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:and do you think that the egyptian state ultimately sprang from nubia or what?
Tracy L. Prowse and Nancy C. Lovell (1996) "Concordance of Cranial and Dental Morphological Traits and Evidence for Endogamy in Ancient Egypt," _Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
A comparison with neighbouring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to population in northern Nubia [Ta Seti] than to neighbouring populations in southern Egypt. [p. 237]Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}: Obelisk 2 things:
Why would you desire to hang on to the term "Nubia" which is such an aid in confusion?
Nubia is the apartheid discourse in history.
Apartheid in South Africa is the ideology whereby Europeans claim African land.
Apartheid in Eurocentric pseudo-history is the ideology whereby Europeans claim ancient Afriacn civilisations.
Africans learn this discourse from Europeans.
By thinking critically, we can examine the evidence and easily deconstruct the apartheid discourse.
But there are some who actually 'cling' to the lies they learn, simply because it's what they were taught, and following what you were originally taught is the easiest thing to do.
It's a sheeplike response, and most cults, brainwashing, and cultural/nationalist propaganda depend upon this response.
Hey asspipe, hate to disappoint you, but Im not sucking on any ideological or ethnocentric prick, Im just going (or at least trying) by the facts, mkay? The FACTS say that NUBIA (the name Nubia is interchangable with Ta-Seti by the way, since Ta-Seti, the first nome, was actually PART of Nubia during the predynastic, and it was absorbed politically into egypt during the first dynasty, betcha didn't know that) and upper egypt had their first kingdoms at around the same time, and that one civilization wasn't necessarily the mother of the other, although there were influences passed between them, like the white crown. I never said egypt was non-african, and I never said Nubia was a "lesser civilization". so stop twisting my words and get off my nuts, aiiight? peace .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point Obelisk is that NO SUCH ENTITY existed in the predynastic period named "Nubia". The entities that DID exist were TaSeti, Wawat, Yam, Meroe and Kush, among others. They did not belong to a "Nubia", because "Nubia" implies that they were part of some regional super state, which stretched from the South of Egypt to below the 6th cataract, with a shared governance and culture. They did not because NO SUCH ENTITY existed. If it did then "Nubia" would be the FIRST organized nation state on the planet, but it isnt because NO SUCH THING EXISTED. Each of these polities had their own politics, culture and identity and did not identify as "Nubian". Of course, Egypt is the first organized nation state, because it WAS a regional superstate made up of smaller political entities unfied under a single ruling structure.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egypt is the first organized nation state, because it WAS a regional superstate made up of smaller political entities unfied under a single ruling structure.
....the origins of which lie partly in TaSeti, 1st nome of Kemet. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The FACTS say that NUBIA (the name Nubia is interchangable with Ta-Seti by the way, since Ta-Seti, the first nome, was actually PART of Nubia during the predynastic, and it was absorbed politically into egypt during the first dynasty, betcha didn't know that) and upper egypt had their first kingdoms at around the same time, and that one civilization wasn't necessarily the mother of the other, although there were influences passed between them, like the white crown. I never said egypt was non-african, and I never said Nubia was a "lesser civilization".
- Ta-Seti "A-group" polity was amongst the discrete polities [e.g. Nagadan polities] along the lower Nile Valley, in 'predynastic Egypt'.
- There was no "Egypt" prior to unification into the single highly-structured and centralized Dynastic Egyptian nation.
- No nation of "Nubia" has ever existed - it is a Eurocentric corruption and misusage of a Nile Valley term, "Nubt" - presumably somewhere in upper Egypt.
- Ta-Seti, like other regions north of it, were eventually brought under a single unified and centralized "Dynastic" Egypt, and hence, what was Ta-Seti became part of Dynastic Egypt on the onset of the nation state.
- There were other polities beyond the reach of A-Group Ta-Seti, but the most notable amongst these was Yam, and/or the pre-cursor [Kerma] of Kush.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
As for Serekhs, Dreyer also came across those in the predynastic Abydos Royal cemetery U-J:
Well, I got news for ya, the Abdyos royal cemetery "U-J" is equally as old, maybe slightly younger (some sites say U-j is 3300 BC or 3200 BC) than the ones at Qustul, and both have serekhs, so where ultimately did serekhs come from? get back to me on that. peace .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
As for Serekhs, Dreyer also came across those in the predynastic Abydos Royal cemetery U-J:
Well, I got news for ya, the Abdyos royal cemetery "U-J" is equally as old, maybe slightly younger (some sites say U-j is 3300 BC or 3200 BC) than the ones at Qustul, and both have serekhs, so where ultimately did serekhs come from? get back to me on that. peace .
posted
The point Obelisk is that there is a history of human settlement and evolution along the Nile Valley that predates BOTH Ta Seti AND Kmt. The history of these settlements stretch back past 10,000 B.C. It is from these patterns of settlement and the development of organized societies that the cultures of the Nile Valley developed, INCLUDING those of Ta Seti AND Kmt. The point being that "Nubia" has no part in this and that these older cultures and industries have many names and identifiers, but they are ALL part of the continuum of development that LED TO the development of Dynastic Egypt. Many of the OLDEST sites of human habitation are in Sudan. These include lithic industries, early "cities", early burials, early evidence of pottery, early evidence of cattle cults (cattle culture) and early evidence of plant domestication. Therefore, MUCH of what became Egyptian dynastic culture arose from OLDER cultures and populations in Egypt and Sudan. Ta Seti is but one example of this, but it is only a PART of the story and "Nubia" is nothing but an ARTIFICIAL construct designed to omit and SEGREGATE the history of cultures from Sudan that played a fundamental role in the development of dynastic Egyptian culture.
quote: Unlike their European "contemporaries" who had to deal with the changing post-ice age climate and the disappearance of several food species, the early Egyptians were still able to engage in hunting large game animals, and since many of the animal herds were now concentrated near the Nile, more stable settlements could be made. The Halfan Industry, or rather, the Halfan people, for it was much more than just a way of making tools, flourished between 18,000 and 15,000 BC (though one site has been found dating to before 24,000 BC) on a diet of large herd animals and the Khormusan tradition of fishing. Although there are only a few Halfan sites and they are small in size, there is a greater concentration of artifacts, indicating that this was not a people bound to seasonal wandering, but one that had settled, at least for a time.
Another group that did rather well during this time (17,000 - 15,000 BC) was the Fakhurian, an industry based entirely on microlithic tools. Indeed, they are the only industry discovered so far that is solely microlithic. Some Fakhurian blades are less than 3 cm long! At the same time, the two Idfuan industries were retaining a culture based on nomadic hunting, trapping, and snaring. During this time, at least in Upper Egypt, there is a trend for industries, as they become more advanced, to become more localized. No doubt this is due to the fact that the people were ceasing to be nomadic, settling in various areas, and then developing separately from everyone else depending on the environment in which they made their home, whether it was on the banks of the Nile, on the savannas, or in one of the outlying oases not yet claimed by the desert. Perhaps it should be mentioned that the Nile of the Paleolithic was much different than the Nile of today. Although dry, the desert areas were not completely hostile, as the annual flooding of the Nile was much higher than today, which resulted in a greater groundwater table and in turn, oases, floodpools, and waterholes.
With the sites from these periods archaeologists begin to see the signs of "true" cultures emerging. The Qadan (13,000 - 9,000 BC) sites, stretching from the Second Cataract of the Nile to Tushka (about 250 km upriver from Aswan), actually have cemeteries and evidence of ritual burial. It is also during this time that the first great experiments in ordered agriculture began. Grinding stones and blades have been found in great numbers with a glossy film of silica on them, possibly the result of cut grass stems. Sadly, as stone preserves better than straw baskets or satchels, the extent of agriculture from this period can not be determined. It may not have been true agriculture as we know it, but rather a sort of systematic "caring for" the local plant life (watering and harvesting, but as yet no planting in ordered rows and the like). Yet even this would put the Paleolithic Egyptians on almost the same technological level as the early Neolithic peoples in Europe. Some of the sites also give evidence that fishing was abandoned by the people living there, possibly because farmed grains (barley, most likely), together with the large herd animals still hunted, created a diet that was more than adequate.
Add to that the Nabta Playa, Kerma and Khartoum Mesolithic sites as well as other ancient sites and you have signifigant influence from the South into the development of dynastic Kmt.
As for Serekhs, Dreyer also came across those in the predynastic Abydos Royal cemetery U-J:
Well, I got news for ya, the Abdyos royal cemetery "U-J" is equally as old, maybe slightly younger (some sites say U-j is 3300 BC or 3200 BC) than the ones at Qustul, and both have serekhs, so where ultimately did serekhs come from? get back to me on that. peace .
You tell him Takruri,Babe.
.
My name's Obelisk 18, and Im the only guy in this forum who can use the word babe, you got that babe? Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
As for Serekhs, Dreyer also came across those in the predynastic Abydos Royal cemetery U-J:
[/qb]
Well, I got news for ya, the Abdyos royal cemetery "U-J" is equally as old, maybe slightly younger (some sites say U-j is 3300 BC or 3200 BC) than the ones at Qustul, and both have serekhs, so where ultimately did serekhs come from? get back to me on that. peace
First - are these sites citing the specific findings of the discoverers of the tombs. If not, then whose word do you take - interpretation of the laymen and secondary observers, or that of the primary researcher? You pick.
Second - Qustul cemetary finds like the incense burner have been dated to a later date than previously noted, according to a recent publication on the Oriental Institute - University of Chicago [see: the thread about the question of 'surrogate polities' in Ta-Seti and Nagada']. If anything, these polities [in Abydos and Ta-Seti] were concurrently running.
The Serekhs shown, presumably from Dreyer's [the discoverer of the recent Tomb findings] collection, are distinct from that shown in Ta-Seti Qustul imagery. So, did one influence the other - I can't say.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
As for Serekhs, Dreyer also came across those in the predynastic Abydos Royal cemetery U-J:
Well, I got news for ya, the Abdyos royal cemetery "U-J" is equally as old, maybe slightly younger (some sites say U-j is 3300 BC or 3200 BC) than the ones at Qustul, and both have serekhs, so where ultimately did serekhs come from? get back to me on that. peace
First - are these sites citing the specific findings of the discoverers of the tombs. If not, then whose word do you take - interpretation of the laymen and secondary observers, or that of the primary researcher? You pick.
Second - Qustul cemetary finds like the incense burner have been dated to a later date than previously noted, according to a recent publication on the Oriental Institute - University of Chicago [see: the thread about the question of 'surrogate polities' in Ta-Seti and Nagada']. If anything, these polities [in Abydos and Ta-Seti] were concurrently running.
The Serekhs shown, presumably from Dreyer's [the discoverer of the recent Tomb findings] collection, are distinct from that shown in Ta-Seti Qustul imagery. So, did one influence the other - I can't say. [/QB]
Dated to a later date? You sure? show me a link babe... and if it was indeed was dated to a later date.... you sure that wasn't some sort Eurocentric agenda trying to downplay the role of Nubian cultures in the history of the Nile Valley? was the "later dating" really scientificially motivated? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dated to a later date? You sure? show me a link babe... and if it was indeed was dated to a later date.... you sure that wasn't some sort Eurocentric agenda trying to downplay the role of Nubian cultures in the history of the Nile Valley? was the "later dating" really scientificially motivated? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Come on now, I already hinted on the thread it was posted in; you've been around long enough and participated in the said discussion - could you not have figured out the rest on your own?
Anyway, if I must do the work for you, here goes:
There seems to be discrepancy in claims of dates attributed to the Qustul incense burner...
“A large case along the south wall of the gallery contains pots, jewelry and other materials from two tombs. Among those items is an incense burner from about 3100 B.C., crafted of limestone in a circular shape typical of Nubia but decorated in Egyptian motifs. The piece has an image of a Pharaoh, a boat carrying a captive and the facade of a palace. The incense burner is a seminal piece of the heritage of the culture, Harvey said, because it shows the early influence of Egypt and how indigenous art forms were incorporated with Egyptian influences.” - Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.
“The new findings suggest that the ancient Nubians may have reached this stage of political development as long ago as 3300 B.C., several generations before the earliest documented Egyptian king. The discovery is based on study of artifacts from ancient tombs excavated 15 years ago in an international effort (From page A16)
Clues to Oldest Monarchy Found in Nubia
to rescue archeological deposits before the rising waters of the Aswan Dam covered them.
The artifacts, including hundreds of fragments of pottery, jewelry, stone vessels, and ceremonial objects such as incense burners, were initially recovered from the Qustul cemetery by Keith C. Seele, a professor at the University of Chicago. The cemetery, which contained 33 tombs that were heavily plundered in ancient times, was on the Nile near the modern boundary between Egypt and the Sudan. The significance of the artifacts, which had been in storage at the university's oriental Institute, was not fully appreciated until last year, when Bruce Williams, a research associate, began to study them.
"Keith Seele had suspected the tombs were special, perhaps even royal," Dr. Williams said in an interview. "It was obvious from the quantity and quality of the painted pottery and the jewelry that we were dealing with wealthy people. But it was the picture on a stone incense burner that indicated we really had the tomb of a king."
On the incense burner, which was broken and had to be pieced together, was a depiction of a palace façade, a crowned king sitting on a throne in a boat, a royal standard before the king and, hovering above the king, the falcon god Horus. Most of the images are ones commonly associated with kingship in later Egyptian traditions.
The portion of the incense burner bearing the body of the king is missing but, Dr. Williams said, scholars are agreed that the presence of the crown in a form well known from dynastic Egypt and the god Horus are irrefutable evidence that the complete image was that of a king.
Clue on Incense Burner
The majestic figure on the incense burner, Dr. Williams said, is the earliest known representation of a king in the Nile Valley. His name is unknown, but he is believed to have lived approximately three generations before the time of Scorpion, the earliest-known Egyptian ruler. Scorpion was one of three kings said to have ruled Egypt before the start of what is called the first dynasty around 3050 B.C.
Dr. Williams said the dating is based on correlations of artistic styles in the Nubian pottery with similar styles in predynastic Egyptian pottery, which is relatively well dated.
He said some of the Nubian artifacts bore disconnected symbols resembling those of Egyptian hieroglyphics that were not readable. "They were on their way to literacy," Dr. Williams said, "probably quite close to Egypt in this respect."
He said it was not known what the ancient Nubian civilization was called at the time but that he suspected it was Ta-Seti, a name known from Egyptian writings that means "Land of the Bow," referring to the weapon which, apparently, was deemed characteristic of peoples in that part of Africa.
Dr. Williams said there were accounts in later Egyptian writings of the Egyptians attacking Ta-Seti some time around 3000 B.C. This is just about the time, according to the archeological record, when a major cultural transformation began in that part of Nubia. Little is known of what was happening in this region between 3000 B.C. and 2300 B.C. when inhabitants were unquestionably governed by separate chiefdoms.
Their descendents, he suggested, may have developed the Sudanese Kingdom of Kush, based in Kurma, Egyptians for sovereignty and, in fact, prevailed over them for a while.
A detailed monograph on the discoveries is in preparation, but there is no deadline and publication is expected to be a few years away.”
“3800-3100 B.C. Qustul: The oldest tombs of a pharaonic type are found in Nubia (Kingdom of Qustul), and these thirty-three A-Group tombs appear in Nubia before the dynastic period. Cemetery L at Qustul, which is a small cemetery containing unusually large and wealthy tombs of A-Group. It was in one of these graves, "L-24" coded by the excavators, that the mysterious incense burner came to light. An incense burner with figures and pictographs gouged deep into the clay. This censer had been found, not in Egypt, but nearly 200 miles deep in Nubia. The inscription showed three ships sailing in procession. The three ships were sailing toward the royal palace. One of the ships carried a lion - perhaps a deity. The central boat carries the king, sitting and equipped with long robe, flail and White Crown. All motifs that would later become symbols of Pharaonic rule in Egypt. This piece had been made no later than 3400 B.C. At that early date, there were not supposed to have been any such things as pharaohs or pharaohs' palaces. The discovery of the Qustul Incense Burner is considered one of the earliest certifiable uses of incense by a culture. This Qustul burner also rose a debate regarding the Nubian origin of Egyptian civilization. Upon the Incense Burner is a relief of a royal procession considered by many archeologists as evidence of the worlds first monarchy. This debate maintains that Nubian culture often referred to as Ta-seti, developed as early as 7000 B.C. forming the source for Egyptian Pharonic culture, as well as its religious system. However, Egyptologists all agree that the bounty of the lush Nile Valley was instrumental to the luxuriant flowering of Ancient Egypt. The Sahara was not always a desolate wasteland. Some 10,000 years ago, the Sahara received considerably more rain than it does today, permitting a savanna-like vegetation of open grasslands peppered with shrubs and trees, much like the East African plains of today.”
Dated to a later date? You sure? show me a link babe... and if it was indeed was dated to a later date.... you sure that wasn't some sort Eurocentric agenda trying to downplay the role of Nubian cultures in the history of the Nile Valley? was the "later dating" really scientificially motivated? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Come on now, I already hinted on the thread it was posted in; you've been around long enough and participated in the said discussion - could you not have figured out the rest on your own?
Anyway, if I must do the work for you, here goes:
There seems to be discrepancy in claims of dates attributed to the Qustul incense burner...
“A large case along the south wall of the gallery contains pots, jewelry and other materials from two tombs. Among those items is an incense burner from about 3100 B.C., crafted of limestone in a circular shape typical of Nubia but decorated in Egyptian motifs. The piece has an image of a Pharaoh, a boat carrying a captive and the facade of a palace. The incense burner is a seminal piece of the heritage of the culture, Harvey said, because it shows the early influence of Egypt and how indigenous art forms were incorporated with Egyptian influences.” - Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.
“The new findings suggest that the ancient Nubians may have reached this stage of political development as long ago as 3300 B.C., several generations before the earliest documented Egyptian king. The discovery is based on study of artifacts from ancient tombs excavated 15 years ago in an international effort (From page A16)
Clues to Oldest Monarchy Found in Nubia
to rescue archeological deposits before the rising waters of the Aswan Dam covered them.
The artifacts, including hundreds of fragments of pottery, jewelry, stone vessels, and ceremonial objects such as incense burners, were initially recovered from the Qustul cemetery by Keith C. Seele, a professor at the University of Chicago. The cemetery, which contained 33 tombs that were heavily plundered in ancient times, was on the Nile near the modern boundary between Egypt and the Sudan. The significance of the artifacts, which had been in storage at the university's oriental Institute, was not fully appreciated until last year, when Bruce Williams, a research associate, began to study them.
"Keith Seele had suspected the tombs were special, perhaps even royal," Dr. Williams said in an interview. "It was obvious from the quantity and quality of the painted pottery and the jewelry that we were dealing with wealthy people. But it was the picture on a stone incense burner that indicated we really had the tomb of a king."
On the incense burner, which was broken and had to be pieced together, was a depiction of a palace façade, a crowned king sitting on a throne in a boat, a royal standard before the king and, hovering above the king, the falcon god Horus. Most of the images are ones commonly associated with kingship in later Egyptian traditions.
The portion of the incense burner bearing the body of the king is missing but, Dr. Williams said, scholars are agreed that the presence of the crown in a form well known from dynastic Egypt and the god Horus are irrefutable evidence that the complete image was that of a king.
Clue on Incense Burner
The majestic figure on the incense burner, Dr. Williams said, is the earliest known representation of a king in the Nile Valley. His name is unknown, but he is believed to have lived approximately three generations before the time of Scorpion, the earliest-known Egyptian ruler. Scorpion was one of three kings said to have ruled Egypt before the start of what is called the first dynasty around 3050 B.C.
Dr. Williams said the dating is based on correlations of artistic styles in the Nubian pottery with similar styles in predynastic Egyptian pottery, which is relatively well dated.
He said some of the Nubian artifacts bore disconnected symbols resembling those of Egyptian hieroglyphics that were not readable. "They were on their way to literacy," Dr. Williams said, "probably quite close to Egypt in this respect."
He said it was not known what the ancient Nubian civilization was called at the time but that he suspected it was Ta-Seti, a name known from Egyptian writings that means "Land of the Bow," referring to the weapon which, apparently, was deemed characteristic of peoples in that part of Africa.
Dr. Williams said there were accounts in later Egyptian writings of the Egyptians attacking Ta-Seti some time around 3000 B.C. This is just about the time, according to the archeological record, when a major cultural transformation began in that part of Nubia. Little is known of what was happening in this region between 3000 B.C. and 2300 B.C. when inhabitants were unquestionably governed by separate chiefdoms.
Their descendents, he suggested, may have developed the Sudanese Kingdom of Kush, based in Kurma, Egyptians for sovereignty and, in fact, prevailed over them for a while.
A detailed monograph on the discoveries is in preparation, but there is no deadline and publication is expected to be a few years away.”
“3800-3100 B.C. Qustul: The oldest tombs of a pharaonic type are found in Nubia (Kingdom of Qustul), and these thirty-three A-Group tombs appear in Nubia before the dynastic period. Cemetery L at Qustul, which is a small cemetery containing unusually large and wealthy tombs of A-Group. It was in one of these graves, "L-24" coded by the excavators, that the mysterious incense burner came to light. An incense burner with figures and pictographs gouged deep into the clay. This censer had been found, not in Egypt, but nearly 200 miles deep in Nubia. The inscription showed three ships sailing in procession. The three ships were sailing toward the royal palace. One of the ships carried a lion - perhaps a deity. The central boat carries the king, sitting and equipped with long robe, flail and White Crown. All motifs that would later become symbols of Pharaonic rule in Egypt. This piece had been made no later than 3400 B.C. At that early date, there were not supposed to have been any such things as pharaohs or pharaohs' palaces. The discovery of the Qustul Incense Burner is considered one of the earliest certifiable uses of incense by a culture. This Qustul burner also rose a debate regarding the Nubian origin of Egyptian civilization. Upon the Incense Burner is a relief of a royal procession considered by many archeologists as evidence of the worlds first monarchy. This debate maintains that Nubian culture often referred to as Ta-seti, developed as early as 7000 B.C. forming the source for Egyptian Pharonic culture, as well as its religious system. However, Egyptologists all agree that the bounty of the lush Nile Valley was instrumental to the luxuriant flowering of Ancient Egypt. The Sahara was not always a desolate wasteland. Some 10,000 years ago, the Sahara received considerably more rain than it does today, permitting a savanna-like vegetation of open grasslands peppered with shrubs and trees, much like the East African plains of today.”
Um babe, out of all the sources you've listed, only one has a date different from 3300 BC, and that's the chicago site, and it says 3100 BC, and I don't know what the hell lead them to date it to that, but anyways, but point still stands, the Qustul burner is just as old, if not slightly older, than the Abydos "Scorpion I" tombs, which MOST academic sites list as being from around 3200 BC, a full 100 years before the Qustul burner. Make a decision .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
As for Serekhs, Dreyer also came across those in the predynastic Abydos Royal cemetery U-J:
Well, I got news for ya, the Abdyos royal cemetery "U-J" is equally as old, maybe slightly younger (some sites say U-j is 3300 BC or 3200 BC) than the ones at Qustul, and both have serekhs, so where ultimately did serekhs come from? get back to me on that. peace .
You tell him Takruri,Babe.
.
My name's Obelisk 18, and Im the only guy in this forum who can use the word babe, you got that babe?
posted
So what were all of the places south of the first cataract if not called nubia or nub.t called? In pre-dynasty onto the dynastic period so I can get "nubia" out of my vernacular. What word should I use to talk about the place below the 1st cataract for forum topic sake?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 'Nubia' was a term coined by the Romans to describe the region south of Egypt. The Egyptians themselves have NEVER used that term but specifically list the various polities or peoples who lived in the region. It is likely that the Roman's word 'Nubia' is derived from the Egyptian word nub meaning gold, as the areas south of Egypt is very much rich in that metal. However, the closest thing to 'Nubia' the Egyptians used was Nubti which was a city in Egypt.
Now, the history of the Nile Valley preceeding Egypt has been discussed numerous times on this board including in here.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Um babe, out of all the sources you've listed, only one has a date different from 3300 BC, and that's the chicago site, and it says 3100 BC, and I don't know what the hell lead them to date it to that
You are quite a handful. I answered to your irrelevant request of showing what I was talking about, even though you were an active participant in the very discussion it was initially posted in; what more do you want?
Yes, it was the Oriental Institute of University of Chicago site that mentioned the said date - why is this noteworthy? Well, for one, the items are under the care of that very same Oriental Institute, and that same site is also the source of information that Myra's site was citing.
quote:Obelisk_18:
, but anyways, but point still stands, the Qustul burner is just as old, if not slightly older, than the Abydos "Scorpion I" tombs, which MOST academic sites list as being from around 3200 BC, a full 100 years before the Qustul burner. Make a decision
Where did you get the idea that the "King Scorpion I's tomb' dates to 3200 BC, when the items found therein date much earlier than what you just mentioned; you certainly didn't get that information from the discoverer of this tomb and its contents - G. Dreyer? You must be confusing another late predynastic pharaoh, King Scorpion "II", with King Scorpion I.
You talk of my need to make a 'decision' - did I say I was undecided about something to begin with? Your posts have the tendency to have these bizarre twists about them, that usually don't follow what has been stated.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic