posted
Are the further evidences alluded to by Yurco available anywhere to read? For the longest, and admittedly without greater research, I've denied such alliance because the intercepted note speaks more to an attempted not an effected coalition.
The nature of the seals may support alliance but they and most defininetly the pottery could just be items of trade.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As Yurco put it in a response to Emily Vermeule's attack on Martin Bernal:
... Proof of the alliance has also come from
[1] seals with Hyksos names found in the Kushite burial mounds, and [2] Hyksos style pottery also.
... Most sincerely, Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Are the further evidences alluded to by Yurco available anywhere to read? For the longest, and admittedly without greater research, I've denied such alliance because the intercepted note speaks more to an attempted not an effected coalition.
The nature of the seals may support alliance but they and most defininetly the pottery could just be items of trade.
You have a point! It's possible that the intercepted letter was just an excuse to quell Kush's power. We know that long before the Hyksos Egypt has had a hard time with Kush. The seals and pottery as evidence of trade are proof enough of relations between the Kushites and Hyksos. I don't think the Egyptians wanted to wait and see if the Kushites would take the offer to join forces to divide Kemet. Also, I wonder if the attack on Kush was also somekind of revenge for them having such dealing with Asiatics in the first place let alone betraying their Nile Valley siblings to them.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Hmmm, quite possibly.. but even if there was an alliance, that in itself is nothing unusual. All major states have alliances of convenience, where the enemy of yesterday is the ally of today and vice versa.. aint no big thang..
As for Emily Vermulde, Aaron Kamigusha had this to say in his "Finally in Africa?" where he calls her statements "bizarre.." [quote]
""Worse yet in the link between ancient history and contemporary understandings are the comments of Emily Vermeule, an emeritus professor of classics from Harvard University. Such devastation has been wrought by Bernal's 'turning of the world upside down' that normal historical understandings have been cast aside. As a result:
"Bernal also believes that Egypt was essentially African, and therefore black. But he does not say what we are to make of historical accounts of Egyptian pharaohs campaigning against black neighbours in the south, in the Land of Kush, as when Thutmosis I of Egypt, around 1510 B.C., annihilated a black Kushite army at the Third Cataract and came home with the body of a black Kushite prince hanging upside down from the prow of his ship. Perhaps Bernal thinks of this as African tribal warfare." (60)
Students who follow Vermeule's historical methodology in centuries to come will surely have grave difficulty in understanding twentieth-century history. Could France and Germany really have been part of the same economic union, after three wars in seventy years? The extent of a hostility that resulted in three generations of young men losing their lives on the battlefield must be the result of a deeper animosity between the two peoples; perhaps they were of different 'races' to begin with. (61)
Shomarka Keita's dry commentary on this bizarre statement by Vermeule says it all. 'Excusing the pejorative "tribal warfare" (in Europe it is called ethnic conflict), it is clear that she is saying that this must have been a racial war . . . [However] the antagonisms between Kush and Egypt were political and not racial' (emphasis in original). (62)" Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this not happening around the same time as This?
Tomb Reveals Ancient Egypt's Humiliating Secret
"Listen you, who are alive upon earth . . . Kush came . . . aroused along his length, he having stirred up the tribes of Wawat . . . the land of Punt and the Medjaw . . .""
The tomb belonged to Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, an important provincial capital during the latter part of the 17th Dynasty (about 1575-1550 BC)
Is anyone familiar with the chronology of these events?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The military endeavor wherein archaeological indications shows that Kemetic state was almost defeated by Kushites appears to be the earlier undertaking, and the other, i.e. the Kemetic reporting about defeat of the Kush forces is a later event.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
^^ Hmmm, quite possibly.. but even if there was an alliance, that in itself is nothing unusual. All major states have alliances of convenience, where the enemy of yesterday is the ally of today and vice versa.. aint no big thang..
As for Emily Vermulde, Aaron Kamigusha had this to say in his "Finally in Africa?" where he calls her statements "bizarre.." [quote]
""Worse yet in the link between ancient history and contemporary understandings are the comments of Emily Vermeule, an emeritus professor of classics from Harvard University. Such devastation has been wrought by Bernal's 'turning of the world upside down' that normal historical understandings have been cast aside. As a result:
"Bernal also believes that Egypt was essentially African, and therefore black. But he does not say what we are to make of historical accounts of Egyptian pharaohs campaigning against black neighbours in the south, in the Land of Kush, as when Thutmosis I of Egypt, around 1510 B.C., annihilated a black Kushite army at the Third Cataract and came home with the body of a black Kushite prince hanging upside down from the prow of his ship. Perhaps Bernal thinks of this as African tribal warfare." (60)
Students who follow Vermeule's historical methodology in centuries to come will surely have grave difficulty in understanding twentieth-century history. Could France and Germany really have been part of the same economic union, after three wars in seventy years? The extent of a hostility that resulted in three generations of young men losing their lives on the battlefield must be the result of a deeper animosity between the two peoples; perhaps they were of different 'races' to begin with. (61)
Shomarka Keita's dry commentary on this bizarre statement by Vermeule says it all. 'Excusing the pejorative "tribal warfare" (in Europe it is called ethnic conflict), it is clear that she is saying that this must have been a racial war . . . [However] the antagonisms between Kush and Egypt were political and not racial' (emphasis in original). (62)"
Related - A copy of a topic that was posted both here on Egyptsearch, and the Nile Valley forum--here: LinkPosts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
SUPERCAR: Another entertaining (comical) one comes from Emily Vermule, in her response to Martin Bernal's Black Athena:
"Bernal also believes that Egypt was essentially African, and therefore black. But he does not say what we are to make of the historical accounts of Egyptian pharaohs campaigning against black neighbors to the south, in the Land of Kush, as when Tuthmosis I of Egypt, around 1510 B.C., annihilated a black Kushite army at the Third Cataract and came home with the body of a black Kushite prince hanging upside down from the prow of his ship. Perhaps Bernal thinks of this as African tribal warfare?"
Source: Emily Vermeule, "The World Turned Upside Down," The New York Review of Books, March 26, 1992, p. 41.
Richard Poe's response to Emily Vermeule's statement: "Vermeule is clearly arguing that the very savagery of the fighting between Egyptians and Nubians proves that they must have belonged to different "races." I can find no other way to interpret Vermeule's argument except as an expression of the old notion that a "natural antipathy" exists between people of different races. 19th-century-style racialism is far from dead. It is simply better camouflaged."
Yurco's response:
"The reason for the virulence of the Egyptian attack on Kush in early Dynasty 18, is not based on racial hatred as Vermuele claimed, but has its roots in the discovery that Kamose made and which he inscribed on his second stela, discovered in 1954. In that stela, he states that his troops captured a Hyksos messenger on the oasis road headed south to Kush. His message was, Kamose is attacking the Hyksos king on the southern end of Hyksos ruled Egypt. You have arisen as king without letting me (the Hyksos king) know, but as Kamose is attacking me, you strike him in the rear (from Kush into Upper Egypt), and then we will divide up this Egypt between your land and mine. That is why the attack when it came was so virulent. The Egyptians had realized that the Hyksos were allied to the Kushites, with the Dynasty 17 squeezed in between. The capture of this message drove home the plight of Egypt. Already Seqenenre Ta'aa had died in battle against the Hyksos, and now this, a Hyksos-Kushite alliance. Proof of the alliance has also come from seals with Hyksos names found in the Kushite burial mounds, and Hyksos style pottery also. So, this accounts for the virulent attack on Kush that really took off only after the Hyksos were driven from Egypt. However, since the Kushites had been in this alliance that could have wiped out Egypt in a moment, the Egyptians obviously had it in for both powers once they became masters of their own fate again. Thus there is no need to invoke racial hatred, in Thutmose hanging the Kushite chief head downward from his flagship, but solely the political realization that the Kushites had been allied with the Hyksos, and that the two allied powers had come within a blink of wiping out Egypt and its pharaonic state."
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Is this not happening around the same time as This?
Tomb Reveals Ancient Egypt's Humiliating Secret
"Listen you, who are alive upon earth . . . Kush came . . . aroused along his length, he having stirred up the tribes of Wawat . . . the land of Punt and the Medjaw . . .""
The tomb belonged to Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, an important provincial capital during the latter part of the 17th Dynasty (about 1575-1550 BC)
Is anyone familiar with the chronology of these events?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The military endeavor wherein archaeological indications shows that Kemetic state was almost defeated by Kushites appears to be the earlier undertaking, and the other, i.e. the Kemetic reporting about defeat of the Kush forces is a later event.
^ Correct. The war against the Hyksos and Kushites was begun by Sekenenra Tao II the last king of the 17th dynasty and continued with his daughter and son-law who were founders of the 18th dynasty.
I forgot that Egypt's close annihilation by Kush happened in the 17th dynasty just prior to Kush's alleged or suggested alliance with the Hyksos. Egypt's hostility towards Kush just makes even more sense!
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic