posted
________________________________________________________________________the pink part is theoretical
This is the same supposed white crown side as the middle black and white version in the yellow but after they added a blank stone support for the fragments
It is strange that after so much discussion of the Qustul Incense Burner that I could find no static image of the part of it which is alleged to show a white crown. Above, thank you Myra, a video which shows it beginning at at time 2:10.
The video says the fragments are "reassembled". I'm not sure what this means. I guess it means that the smooth main form of the burner is a modern support and only the parts with picture sections were part of a solid original.
Look again at the drawing at the top of the post marked "1,2,3,4" in segment 3 you can see a line which goes through the two figures. As per the photo, the actual fragment is what is below that line in the drawing. Apparently the upper part of the figures including the heads in the drawing are a modern expert's guess as to what was actually there, in reality the fragment representing that area was not recovered.
Now look above again at the drawing to segment 2. If you look at the video you can see what is the actual fragment and how it corresponds to the part of the drawing. Again there is a line in the drawing passing through the segment showing that there is no actual fragment under what is supposed to be a white crown. Therefore everything under what is supposed to be a crown, the part of the head with a face on it the rest of the body in a sitting position seems to be entirely a modern artist's guess. To the left, the right part of a plant like form, tips of leaves have been completed by the modern artist as well as the head of what is supposed to be a falcon as well as three legs of what appears to be a table or some other man made object the falcon is sitting on, all imagined by the artist.
Another thing I notice, look back at the video and pause at time: 2:15 un-pause it look for a moment and they show you the shape highlighted in red. This shape is supposed to a white crown but the bottom edge of go straight across, it's on an angle.
On an actual Hedjet the bottom edge goes straight across, perpendicular and then has a part the drops down around the shape of the ear. But on the incense burner when they highlight the shape the bottom edge is on a sharp angle not straight across.
I would like to see a better still picture of this view of the incense burner. At this point it seems speculative what that shape is and as well the whole face and body under that shape is a modern artist's guess that that is under that shape.
The drawing we have seen over and over again I had never noticed is not just representing the fragments that were found it is also an artist's conception of large pieces that are missing.
The drawing is representing a lot more more than what is actually there. It might be a nice idea that there is a Nubian king there with a white crown but there is no figure there on the actual artifact. What was there is unknown. That might be unpleasant but it's objective.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^^that's segment 1 again
how about segment 2, the white crown view, thanks
The drawing is representing a lot more more than what is actually there. It might be a nice idea that there is a Nubian king there with a white crown but there is no figure there on the actual artifact. What was there is unknown. That might be unpleasant but it's objective. - the lioness
I have the book Excavations Between Abu Simbel and Sudan: The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L (Nubian Expedition vol. III), by Bruce Beyer Williams, from The University of Chicago Oriental Institute (1986)
my scan from plate 38
page 138
It is no easy task to rescue the relics of an age that have merely been lost or hidden. So much more difficult it is, then, to take fragments or objects that have been deliberately sought out for destruction and recover their original meaning so that it is presented to an observer with full force. If the ancient destroyer detected an image, he destroyed it; only small or obscure figures survived intact.
Most representations are fragmentary or on damaged surfaces that required extended and repeated examination under varied conditions to recover the outlines and masses of figures; various possible parallels had to be applied in combination as possible templates for restoration. The outlines of figures are often faint or hardly discernible against a broken or deteriorated surface... Fortunately, reconstructions have sometimes been almost obvious, indicated by comparisons with well-known thematic representations in early pharaonic art.
page 142
The enthroned pharaoh with a falcon on a serekh above and in front of him is so well known in early Egypt that parallels hardly need citation.(27)
Footnote 27. See, for example, Petrie 1901b, pl. XV:108 (Djer). Both the Faras and Siali seals show a serekh as part of an event-description of the type later found on labels. This presumes that the ship is to be restored with a throne because there is no room for the king to have any pose but seated. For a similar vessel from Nubia with a throne, see Mills and Nordstrom 1966, p. 9, fig. 9, grave 16:15.
He is restored enthroned here according to all of the other early parallels, especially as a bark shown on a seal from the Sarras West cemetery already has a st throne on it.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Who are the Egyptologists, Nubianologists and archaeologists who disagree the white crown is depicted on the Qustul censer? Are there any?
All I've seen is those who argue for tomb U-j being older than L-24 but no flat out denials of any of the censer's symbols identities as far as the standard, barques, rosette, falcon, serekh, white crown, prisoner, or palace/temple facade as speculative.
The censer white crown predates Skorpion II's.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Myra. That is perhaps the only picture on the internet of that view of the incense burner whereas other views of it are on many sites.
I think everyone needs to save this image and text in case this thread later gets deleted.
I think if you haven't already you should put it up on your website at a high resolution.
Who are the Egyptologists, Nubianologists and archaeologists who disagree the white crown is depicted on the Qustul censer? Are there any?
Dr. Williams said, scholars agree that's a white crown. I checked all my Egyptology/Nubianology books ... can't find anyone that disputes this.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It takes a lot of imagination to see that shape as a 'white crown', when there is no context for it, when the top and bottom are missing, and there's no room for a figure below, proportionate with the alleged crown itself. I think the reconstruction is highly suspect.
There's a roll seal from Elam which is also said to depict this crown. David Rohl presents it as evidence of Egyptian Civilization's origins in the Persian Gulf, but only shows a drawing. I would be interested to see a photo...
Who are the Egyptologists, Nubianologists and archaeologists who disagree the white crown is depicted on the Qustul censer? Are there any?
Dr. Williams said, scholars agree that's a white crown. I checked all my Egyptology/Nubianology books ... can't find anyone that disputes this.
Thanks for confirming, Myra. It is pretty clear that no one does and that this isn't even an issue:
This incense burner is distinctively Nubian in form. Carved in the technique of Nubian rock art, it is decorated on the rim with typical Nubian designs. It was found in the tomb of a Nubian ruler at Qustul and incorporates images associated with Egyptian pharaohs: a procession of sacred boats, the White Crown of Upper Egypt, a falcon deity, and the palace facade called a serekh. It appears to represent a ritual that involved a royal procession by boat to a palace.
^Why one would limit their scrutiny to the clearly obvious depictions of such royal regalia (the white crown) is beyond me when there is much more to the incense burner that associates it with Egypt.
The important thing about the incense burner as well is that it was locally manufactured so it wasn't just some import from Egypt. There's no easy explanation, especially considering that BB Williams' suggestion has been ruled out for the moment. I don't necessarily buy the explanations in the above link either as the iconography is too specific (even though their former suggestion seems more probable than the latter).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri, are you familiar with David O'Connor William Y Adams and Michael Hoffman?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew that was where Loiness was going with it. Scholars know that questioning the qustul incense burner leads to a dead end as the incense burner is not the only A-group artifact with a white crown depicted on it. The other thing, is that the white crown isn't the only royal object on that incense burner that Egyptologists associate with royal insignia.
^''Archaic horus incense burner'', white crown along with other clear royal insignia.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Who are the Egyptologists, Nubianologists and archaeologists who disagree the white crown is depicted on the Qustul censer? Are there any?
Dr. Williams said, scholars agree that's a white crown. I checked all my Egyptology/Nubianology books ... can't find anyone that disputes this.
Thanks for confirming, Myra. It is pretty clear that no one does and that this isn't even an issue:
This incense burner is distinctively Nubian in form. Carved in the technique of Nubian rock art, it is decorated on the rim with typical Nubian designs. It was found in the tomb of a Nubian ruler at Qustul and incorporates images associated with Egyptian pharaohs: a procession of sacred boats, the White Crown of Upper Egypt, a falcon deity, and the palace facade called a serekh. It appears to represent a ritual that involved a royal procession by boat to a palace.
^Why one would limit their scrutiny to the clearly obvious depictions of such royal regalia (the white crown) is beyond me when there is much more to the incense burner that associates it with Egypt.
The important thing about the incense burner as well is that it was locally manufactured so it wasn't just some import from Egypt. There's no easy explanation, especially considering that BB Williams' suggestion has been ruled out for the moment. I don't necessarily buy the explanations in the above link either as the iconography is too specific (even though their former suggestion seems more probable than the latter).
^ Of course. Some twits in here try to dismiss the white crown yet they fail to dismiss the royal barque, and royal totems of hawk and baboon as well as the serekhs all royal emblems which predate those in later Naqada III Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by DaHoisDum: It takes a lot of imagination to see that shape as a 'white crown', when there is no context for it...
Of course there is context to it, it shows sacred depictions and it was found in a NILE VALLEY AFRICAN culture that is a close neighbor to Egypt, yet it predates Egypt.
I'd say it takes even more imagination to view these people as Mediterranean caca-soids!
Actually more like psychosis.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Thank you Myra. That is perhaps the only picture on the internet of that view of the incense burner whereas other views of it are on many sites.
I think everyone needs to save this image and text in case this thread later gets deleted.
I think if you haven't already you should put it up on your website at a high resolution.
.
3rd REPLY: That GOOGLEBOKS page is blocked for me and I hoped it was a photo but picking up the book and flipping to p.96 I find it's bottom half is the same as this drawing
which is the find from L-11 being TaSeti's other white crown. There is only one maybe contemporaneous Egyptian example, the knife handle kept by New York's Metropolitan Museum.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I knew that was where Loiness was going with it. Scholars know that questioning the qustul incense burner leads to a dead end as the incense burner is not the only A-group artifact with a white crown depicted on it. The other thing, is that the white crown isn't the only royal object on that incense burner that Egyptologists associate with royal insignia.
Her obtuseness posted such a one herself back in December 2010
Amazing! I actually posted the above photo in an earlier thread without realizing it. My apologies. Earlier I hadn't been aware that this is the view that was attached a missing piece, the missing piece which was speculated to have a figure of a king on it
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
King Merenptah - 12 Apr 2004 11:00 GMT The site was nearly two hundred miles deep in the heart of a country the Egyptians had called Ta-Seti - "Land of the Bow." Here in this remote corner of Africa, an elegant and cosmopolitan culture had flourished centuries before the pyramids were built.
Discovery of a variety of artifacts led to the startling conclusions.
It had been found by archaeologist Keith C. Seele in 1964. Originally, Qustul was judged to be one of the least promising areas. Seele spent most of his time in Nubia excavating other areas. When he finally turned his attention to Qustul, in his very last digging season in Nubia, Seele discovered a cemetery of thirty-three tombs.
Twelve of the tombs were tremendous, each one large enough to have served a predynastic Egyptian king.
Tombs of this size, wealth and date in Egypt would have been immediately recognized as royal. Their extraordinarily varied contents would have been taken as evidence of a complex culture exposed to wide outside connections. But because the discovery was made in Nubia at a time and place when kingship was thought impossible, further proof of royalty is necessary.
What was really surprising was the age of the tombs. The cemetery clearly dated from the time of the so-called A-Group - a prehistoric people believed to have dominated lower Nubia from about 3800 to 3100 B.C.
Of all the numerous items discovered, the most significant were found in an A-Group grave site, called Cemetery L, which yielded artifacts that were created six to seven generations (approximately 200 years) before the start of the First Dynasty in Egypt, 3150 B.C.
All told, more than 1,000 complete and fragmentary painted pots, and over 100 stone vessels. The range of these and other fragments from the plundered cemetery began to indicate a wealth and complexity that could only be called royal.
In addition to huge quantities of native pottery, the tombs were filled with bottles, flasks, bowls, and large storage jars from Egypt - many inscribed with hieroglyphs. There were also vessels from Syria-Palestine of a type that had never been found in Egypt and that may have indicated a direct trade link between Nubia and Asia.
These findings included five major groups: 1 - items probably from Sudan 2 - items very similar to a culture previously know as C-Group, which was found in Nubia and in Egypt up to the New Kingdom (2300 - 1500 B.C.) 3 - Egyptian pottery, some of which had early forms of hieroglyphic writing 4 - items from the Levant (Syria and Palestine area) 5 - badly damaged objects of Egyptian and Sudanese origin
It was in one of these graves - coded "L-24" by the excavators - that the mysterious incense burner came to light.
An incense burner with crude figures and pictographs gouged deep into the clay. 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 diety. This piece had been made no later than 3300 B.C. At that early date, there were not supposed to have been any such things as pharaohs or pharaohs' palaces. Moreover, the piece had not even been found in Egypt. It had come from Qustul, located just north of the Sudanese border. The censer, in short was Nubian.
If Williams's restoration was correct this censer had been inscribed with nothing less than the earliest known portrait of a pharaoh ever discovered. Why, then, had it turned up in Nubia rather than Egypt? Such censers simply do not appear in Egypt. Could the earliest pharaoh have actually been Nubian?
This was not Egyptian art. This censer had been found, not in Egypt, but nearly 200 miles deep in Nubia. Moreover, for the time the censer was made, archaeologists had found no trace in Egypt of any other inscription showing such a clear use of royal emblems such as the White Crown, the Horus falcon, the serekh, and the rosette.
…when the incense burner was reexamined in the light of the obviously royal stature of people buried in Cemetery L, the essential restoration of the missing elements was immediately clear. In the first ship, a prisoner is kneeling on a palanquin or litter held by a rope in the grasp of a guard with a mace…the white crown of Upper Egypt clearly stands out above the ship. In front of it is the tail of a falcon - another sign of kingship. The crown indicates that the figure is a king, and the falcon should be seen as perched on a serekh, together a characteristic representation in early dynastic Egypt. In front of the falcon is a rosette, symbol of royalty before the First Dynasty…
Its date provided by context, style and composition, the Qustul burner furnishes the earliest definite representation of a king in the Nile Valley or anywhere…Perhaps the most troublesome question was why nothing of this kingdom had been known until now. Actually, the truth is the evidence, other than the cemetery at Qustul, has been known for some time but it has been either ignored or wrongly interpreted and dated.
When the Qustul incense burner was subjected to geochemical analysis, it was found to be made from a distinctive mineral typically found at Nubian sites such as Aswan, Kalabsha, and Meroe. Did it seem plausible that Egyptians would have quarried Nubian stone, transported it back to Egypt, carved it into a distinctly Nubian style of incense burner, then export the censer back to Nubia? Probably not.
But if the Nubians were organized in a kingdom as early as 3300 B.C., why had no previous evidence been found for this mysterious African state? In fact, it had. Egyptologists had simply failed to grasp the significance of this evidence.
The Nubian desert, for example abounded with rock drawings from roughly the same period as the Qustul incense burner, many showing distinctly "Egyptian" themes and symbols.
Ivory seals from the A-Group period had been found featuring kingly serekhs. A mud seal impression found at Siali - also dating from the A-Group period - showed a man saluting a serekh surmounted by a falcon. The serekh was actually labeled with a bow - the hieroglyphic emblem for Ta-Seti, Land of the Bow - implying that the man was paying homage to a Nubian state. One bowl from Qustul even showed vultures tearing at a fallen enemy who is labeled with the signs for Ta-Shemau - Upper Egypt - possibly indicating that the Nubians had defeated Upper Egypt in battle.
Every one of these inscriptions had been found in Nubia. Yet experts had always assumed that they referred to an Egyptian monarchy, rather than a Nubian one. Why, then, should experts assume that every recognizable symbol of royal authority found in that country would be of foreign origin? Some critics insisted that the Qustul censer must have been an Egyptian import, despite the fact that it was a typically Nubian object made of indisputably Nubian stone.
For nine generations or more, according to the sequence of tombs in Cemetery L, some 12 kings at Qustul participated with other kings in Upper Egypt in the creation of a unified culture. For Egypt, they helped fashion pharaonic civilization and thus a legacy for the First Dynasty which the world has marveled at for millennia. For Nubia, they established an early political unit and led that country to its first cultural distinction.
Seele speculated that the tombs might be royal, evidence of a long-lost dynasty of Nubian kings. Unfortunately, this theory flew in the face of conventional opinion. Seele's theory was subjected to the worst fate known to academia - the silent treatment.
Following his discovery, several major scholarly works were published on Nubia's A-Group culture. But none made even passing reference to the mysterious Cemetery L. For more than ten years, Cemetery L was ignored as completely as if its treasures lay, still unexcavated, at the bottom of Lake Nasser.
Seele died of cancer without ever seeing his theory vindicated. Seele had gone to his grave believing that Nubian kings lay buried in Cemetery L. But he had never imagined that those kings might have been pharaohs, arraying themselves in all the formal regalia of an Egyptian monarch.
As a result of the reexamination of data concerning ancient Nubia, many scholars have concluded that the Nubians were an extremely sophisticated people who built cities, roads, and temples comparable to those of the people of Egypt in the north. It has even been suggested by one researcher that there were more pyramids constructed in Nubia than in Egypt.
Ivan Van Sertima stated on Williams conclusions:
What is equally significant is the more recent discovery that there was some pharaonic-type civilization developing parallel to Egypt through the centuries. Bruce Williams, in a letter to me in 1984, maintained that a Kushite continuity sustained the pharaonic impulse through the ages, from A-group (3300 B.C.) right through to X-Group (550 A.D.). This, to put it in his own words, 'represents a new departure in the examination of Egypt's place in the African context.
The rich graves of the A-Group kings contained gold jewelry, beautiful pottery, and stone vessels…that rivaled the wealth of the Egyptian kings. Many of these luxury objects were Near Eastern or Egyptian, indicating that the A-Group carried on extensive trade with those areas.
In time, the Egyptian and Nubian kingdoms became enemies, and the Egyptian kings, the same ones who built the pyramids, invaded Nubia. The Egyptians conquered the A-Group and ruled the 'Land of the Bow' as a colony.
However, south of the Third Cataract - beyond the area of Egyptian control, the Nubians remained independent and continued to grow strong.
The debate over how old dynastic Egypt was, will continue…but it is important to note two things in this connection. One, it further invalidates any claim to Sumerian or Mesopotamian primacy or any significant influence on the Egyptians of the pyramid age - the earliest hard dating of materials found at Ur, the first Sumerian city-state, is 2600 B.C., whereas the most conservative date for the first Egyptian dynasty is 3100 B.C.
Two, it does not affect the dating of the first pharaonic dynasty in Nubia since the methods used to arrive at that dating would still place Ta-Seti at least 200 years before the first Egyptian dynasty (whatever that date may be). Discussion with Dr. Bruce Williams has established that very clearly.
Current evidence indicates that the Nubians and Egyptians may be ethnically the same with cultures coming from similar sources.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of further archaeological study at Qustul, or any other site in Nubia, is all but impossible became many of the primary areas of investigation now lie under 250 feet of water, at the bottom of Lake Nasser. This man-made lake covers an area of approximately 1,550 square miles, and it is the second largest man-made lake in the world.
During the construction of the Aswan High Dam (1960 - 1968) and the subsequent creation of Lake Nasser, 40 Nubian villages were relocated further inland. Thousands of Nubians were resettled in and around the city of Aswan and in villages further north; however, an untold number drowned when they refused to leave the lands that their ancestors had occupied for more than 5,000 years.
[Nubian Rescue by Rex Keating) writes: All 23 temples and shrines were saved and re-erected elsewhere. Four of them, from Egypt, went overseas; the temple of Dendur now stands in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Fine Art, Taffeh has come to rest in Holland where it may be seen at Leyden, Ellesyn is in Turin and Debod at Madrid. In 1969 the archaeological survey team working in the Sudan reached the Dal Cataract, the extreme southern limit affected by Lake Nasser. Their work had ended and a year later the last two expeditions in Sudanese Nubia were forced by the rising waters to leave. By 1971 Nubia had passed into history. The cost was $41,774,458. Governments were cajoled while radio and film, television and the press were tempted into playing their part in the world pattern of mass persuasion to save Abu Simbel. And it worked.
The decision to build the High Dam was basically humanitarian, not political as has been so often represented. The generating capacity of its 12 turbines is in excess of Egypt's foreseeable needs for years to come. The reservoir behind the dam (known as Lake Nasser) is long and narrow, covering an area of three thousand square miles and extending across two hundred miles of Egyptian territory and a hundred miles over the border into the Sudan, and it will bring two million more acres of land under cultivation.
In addition to the displacement of human beings, a total of 18 ancient temples were dismantled and relocated. These temples were presented as gifts to those nations that assisted in the construction of the Aswan High Dam.
There is no way to estimate the total number of temples and tombs which now lie at the bottom of Lake Nasser, nor is there any way of knowing the many secrets these structures currently hold. Because of the creation of the Aswan Dam, the world will never have an opportunity to study the full impact Africans from the southern Nile Valley had on the development of ancient Egypt and subsequent civilizations.
Sources: African Peoples Contributions to World Civilizations, by Paul L. Hamilton Nile Valley Contributions to Civilization by Anthony T. Browder The Lost Pharoahs of Nubia by Bruce Williams Black Spark, White Fire by Richard Poe Nubian Rescue by Rex Keating
King Merenptah Reply to this Message [Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Katherine Griffis-Greenberg - 12 Apr 2004 11:28 GMT he Qustul evidence is very tenuous and highly interpreted, however. Most recently, Josef Wegner in his "Interaction by the Nubian A-Group and Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Burner", in T. Celenko (ed.),_Egypt in Africa_, (Indianapolis Museum of Art:Indianapolis, 1996) saw the evidence of the burner as evidence of trade only, saying:
"...The evidence from Umm el Gabb [Abydos] demonstrates that not only pharaonic kingship, but also the primary elements of a centralized state system, including writing and a complex administrative and governmental apparatus, were evolving in Egypt for several centuries _prior_ to the 1st Dynasty. Although Classic/Terminal A-Group society has been shown to be more complex and politically organized than previously thought (O'Connor: 1991; 1993:20-23), there is no comparable evidence for the long-term development of such institutions in the A-Group (Also Adams: 1985). The A-Group civilization and adaptation of pharaonic imagery and use of Egyptian style royal titulary and possibly hieroglyphic symbols in connection with the kingship emerged full-blown in the Classi/Terminal period. The development of pharaonic iconography and symbols, and the hieroglyphic writing system is firmly rooted in indigenous cultural and social processes in Egypt. There is thus no evidence to support the contention that the A-Group culture was the fount of the institutions of pharaonic kingship.
<...>
The participation and political emergence of the A-Group does not, however, indicate either the Nubian development of the iconography and institution of pharaonic kingship or the A-Group conquest and unification of Egypt. On the contrary, the Classic/Terminal A-Group period in Lower Nubia is the final phase of a long-lived culture that had evolved over the course of nearly a thousand years. Contemporary with the final unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty, the A-Group disappeared completely -- erased in the prime of its development. Lower Nubia was depopulated for over 300 years, until the emergence of the C-Group culture...This eradication of the A-Group culture becomes extremely difficult to explain if the A-Group kings themselves were the cultural progenitors of the pharaonic civilization." (Wegner 1996: 98-99)
Wegner noted in his article on Nubia for the University of Pennsylvania's "Searching for Ancient Egypt" exhibit:
"...Many items of Egyptian as well as Near Eastern origin were found in the tombs indicating that the A-Group had substantial trade links. The classic A-Group kings also made use of Egyptian-style iconography which suggests they interacted with the development of pre-dynastic kingdoms in late Predynastic Egypt." [_Searching for Ancient Egypt_, David O'Connor and David Silverman [ed.], (Cornell University Press/Dallas Museum of Art, 1997), p. 295.
As O'Connor pointed out, in the section cited by Wegner, about the Qustul burner:
"Williams' theory is exciting, but the evidence for it is not convincing. At the time his theory was published, the Qustul 'royal' tombs antedated the earliest royal tombs of Egypt, of Nakada phase IIIb. But recently an Abydos royal tomb of IIIA has been found [Tomb of U-j - KGG], so Qustul loses chronological primacy.
There are unusual objects in Egyptian style at Qustul, but they are all likely to have been imports from Egypt, not products of Nubia. Two vessels, for example, have painted designs, according to Williams, the conquest of southern Egypt (Ta shemau) and of Hierakanopolis, a town of that region; but the worn signs may be misread, and in any case would refer to conquests by the Egyptians _by_ Egyptians, since the vases are of Egyptian origin.
A stone incense burner [the Qustul burner - KGG] is of special importance. It was carved with motifs Egyptian in style and content (including a depiction of a pharaoh in a traditional crown), yet incense burners are typical of Nubia, not Egypt. Surely it, and therefore its pharaonic iconography, are Nubian in origin, Williams argued. But it is more plausible (because of the thoroughly A-Group or Nubian character of the Qustul cemetery) to suggest that the incense burner was made in Egypt, or decorated by Egyptian artisans, as a special gift for the ruler of Qustul of the day.
The real importance of the Qustul cemetery is that the size and richness of the graves indicate rulers (possibly 3 to 8; Williams suggests 10-12) were buried there, together with their high-status kinfolk. Moreover, because no other Terminal A-Group cemetery approached the importance of the Qustul cemetery, its occupants likely controlled all of Lower Nubia, which would have formed a unitary political unit. In geographical and population size, this entity would have been a complex chiefdom and not a state, but its rulers were sufficiently high in status to be called 'kings.'
Already then, early in the Bronze Age, at least one part of Nubia was on its way to statehood, and was a 'proto-kingdom' like those found earlier in Egypt. Moreover, earlier -- in the classic A-Group -- there were also rulers, like the one buried in an elite cemetery labeled 137, with two maces -- symbols of kingly power imported from Egypt. Their handles were sheathed in gold and decorated, in one case, with rows of animals. Whether such Classic A-Group chiefs ruled only parts of Lower Nubia or all of it, they indicate that political centralization was becoming a feature of Nubian society prior to the development of the royal cemetery at Qustul.
The End of the A-Group
Early in the Egyptian 1st Dynasty, the A-Group ended and the Nubians were driven from Lower Nubia, not to return for about 6 centuries. This can only have been due to organized Egyptian aggression, intended to place this trade corridor, and the source of valuable stones and gold (in flanking deserts), under direct Egyptian control.
The Egyptians not only prevented Nubian resettlement; early in the 4th Dynasty (ca. 2500 BC) they founded in Lower Nubia several strategically placed towns, such as Buhen. These improved Egypt's access to Lower Nubian mineral sources and perhaps reflect an increased volume of trade with Upper Nubia. However, some 160 years later Egypt abandoned these towns, and Nubians began to resettle Lower Nubia..." (O'Connor 1993: 20-23)
O'Connor, D. 1993. _Ancient Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa_. Philadelphia: University Museum/ Univ. of Pennsylvania.
Samuel Mark, in his _From Egypt to Mesopotamia: A Study of Predynastic Trade Routes_ (cited above), also pointed out the following problems with Williams' chronology of the Qustul burner as preceding development of the Egyptian culture in Egypt:
a) The L 24 tomb in which the Qustul burner was found was dated by Williams to Naqada IIIa is based upon fragments of pots, which is assigned that date by Williams due to a questionable dating of a find of a knife in a tomb at Azor in Palestine. When based upon the styling of the jugs and pots alone, the date of the burner is set to 3100 BCE [First Dynasty].
b) Within the L 24 tomb, 3 types of pot stands were found. Williams proposes a Naqada IIIa dating, although the archaeological review on the items shows these to be of Dynasty I design.
c) A shallow bowl fragment and a portion of a cylinder jar with wavy lines were also found in L 24. Williams argues again for a Naqada IIIa dating for these items, but the shallow stone bowl design was produced only in the First Dynasty, as well as the cylinder jar (although a possible earlier development of the cylinder jar is noted).
d) The "linchpin" to Williams' argument for an earlier dating, however, for the burner and all L 24 items requires acceptance of a theory for an earlier dating of a mummified arm recovered from the tomb of Djer [third pharaoh of the First Dynasty], proposing that this arm was stolen from a Naqada IIIa tomb and moved to Djer's tomb in Abydos. He bases this conjecture on one bracelet found on the arm, decorated with serekhs and a falcon perched on top (which is suggested as a part of the possible reconstruction of the Qustul burner). Based upon his review of the style, he proposes that this motif was no longer used by Djer's time and must have come from an earlier tomb. [Petrie, contra, dates the same bracelet to early in the reign of Djer, based upon evidence discussed below].
However, Williams does not take into account that _other items found in Djer's tomb_ also contained plaques of similar design made of lapis lazuli and ivory which parallel the gold and turquoise plaques found on the bracelet, and are, again, datable to the First Dynasty.
This is also compounded by the fact that the arm was found wrapped in linen, which was part of the mummification process of the First Dynasty, but was not part of the Naqada IIIa period.
Finally, there exists iconography in Egypt for the serekh, falcon, and other images found on the Qustul burner, which predate the Naqada IIIa period. Mark sums up these points by saying
"According to the archaeological evidence from L 24, then, it seems that the tomb should be dated to the early First Dynasty, as should the Qustul burner. Therefore, based upon the evidence, the Nubian incense burners, the Scorpion macehead, and the Metropolitan Museum [Gebel el Arak] knife handle all date to the unification of Egypt or later." [pp. 112-115].
IOW, the influence of Egypt is TO the Qustul burner as a matter of a traded item, and NOT as evidence of an origin point, in Mark's view.
Archaeologically, it has been shown that social stratification necessary to create a "kingship" concept was not present in ancient Nubian culture until after the beginning of the dynastic period, by which time the kingship system was well-established.* Hoffman in his _Egypt Before the Pharaohs_, (New York, 1979) presented the archaeological evidence [ as evidenced by the creation of elite tombs of greater size and valuables] that shows the influence went from Egypt to Nubia in the concept of the "divine king" as opposed to your statement. He notes:
"In Lower Nubia [/Sudan], however, this social order did not emerge. The society remained more or less egalitarian until the impact of Egypt was felt directly. For example, Reisner's successor in Nubia, C.M. Firth, excavated what appears to be the earliest example of a 'chiefly' grave in Lower Nubia in the late Gerzean[/Naqada II] or Protodynastic times (ca 3300-3100 BC). At Cemetery 137 Firth discovered a group of rectangular graves roofed by large sandstone slabs. Many appear to have served as family tombs, since a number of burials were found inside. One grave in particular was comparatively rich, boasting many heavy copper axes, chisels, and bar ingots; several stone vases, a dipper of banded slate, a lion's head of rose quartz, covered with green faience glaze, a mica mirror, two maces with gold-plated handles and two large bird-shaped palettes (Firth, 1927: 206 and Trigger, 1965:75). Judging from the style of animals on one of the mace handles and the round-toppoed variety of ther adz, the grave can be dated to the early part of the First Dynasty -- the very moment when Egypt was undergoing unification. But compared to contemporary graves in Egypt, this tomb is poor indeed and a late expression of emerging social-economic class distinctions; and there is clearly an attempt to import the ritual paraphernalia already associated with emergent Egyptian kingship (e.g., the maceheads and palette)." [Hoffman, 1979: 260]
Hoffman cites Trigger as to why this social stratification was limited in lower Nubia even in Protodynastic times, and can be summarized as follows:
a) no opportunities for the land in Lower Nubia to acquire any special value which would develop a public authority and the state;
b) At most Nubian chieftains appeared to have served as tribute/toll takers along the riverside, controlling the passage of trade up the Nile in regional fashion. While this may have placed them, by their wealth, at the apex of their immediate society, it was enough to support their immediate retainers, and not in a state or overall public authoritative function.
c) In other cases, Trigger believes the Nubian chieftain served as do their modern contemporaries, the village omdahs, as a "first among equals. In any case, the power which any of these chiefs was limited both in terms of area and authority."
["History and Settlement in Lower Nubia", Bruce Trigger, Yale University, 1965, Publications in Anthropology 69: 75]
-- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA
Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom
>The site was nearly two hundred miles deep in the heart of a country the >Egyptians had called Ta-Seti - "Land of the Bow." Here in this remote corner of [quoted text clipped - 236 lines] > >King Merenptah Reply to this Message [Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] King Merenptah - 12 Apr 2004 12:24 GMT >Subject: Re: The artifacts speak: Ancient Qustul (Ta-Seti) - Egypt's Founder >From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Art:Indianapolis, 1996) saw the evidence of the burner as evidence of >trade only, saying:
No, your citation needs updating. The burner as "evidence of trade only" is simply your imagination. There are many other factors to consider to simply shrug it off as some indication of trade only. That argument does not apply here, and I have you Katherine to thank for leading me to this very important area.
>"...The evidence from Umm el Gabb [Abydos] demonstrates that not only >pharaonic kingship, but also the primary elements of a centralized state >system, including writing and a complex administrative and governmental >apparatus, were evolving in Egypt for several centuries _prior_ to the >1st Dynasty.
Once again, I think you failed to read the entire post as there are other points to consider. Simply cutting and pasting doesn't count for scholarship, Katherine.
<snip>
The development of pharaonic iconography and >symbols, and the hieroglyphic writing system is firmly rooted in >indigenous cultural and social processes in Egypt. There is thus no >evidence to support the contention that the A-Group culture was the >fount of the institutions of pharaonic kingship.
Outdated citation. The development of iconography and symbols found in the tombs of ancient Nubia (Qustul), as well as evidence to support that contention is within the rest of this post. You didn't read it obviously.
><...> > >The participation and political emergence of the A-Group does not, >however, indicate either the Nubian development of the iconography and >institution of pharaonic kingship or the A-Group conquest and >unification of Egypt.
I highlighted the evidence and pointed out the contrary, but you again failed to prove otherwise. You play the "cut-n-past" game.
On the contrary, the Classic/Terminal A-Group >period in Lower Nubia is the final phase of a long-lived culture that >had evolved over the course of nearly a thousand years. Contemporary [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >themselves were the cultural progenitors of the pharaonic civilization." >(Wegner 1996: 98-99)
Actually, several events took place during the phase of Egypt's first dynasty. Since the Narmer tablet reveals the conquest of an enemy, namely the Nubians during this time documented on the tablet itself, proves another culture existed already, the ancient Nubians of Ta-Seti. Secondly, the ancient Egyptians needed more than anything, a stronger army which they received in victory, among other things. How are you a consultant and don't already know some of these things?
Thirdly, the civilization of Kerma has a link to the A-Group in many similarities, the eradication was not total elimination. Hence the C-Group centuries later. Stronger. No history lessons here though, you know the way to the library.
>Wegner noted in his article on Nubia for the University of >Pennsylvania's "Searching for Ancient Egypt" exhibit: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >O'Connor and David Silverman [ed.], (Cornell University Press/Dallas >Museum of Art, 1997), p. 295.
"...which suggests they interacted with the development of pre-dynastic kingdoms in late Predynastic Egypt." Exactly my point. The A-Group people interacted with the DEVELOPMENT of pre-dynastic kingdoms in late Predynastic Egypt. You finally used a quote that substantiates what I'm saying here.
>As O'Connor pointed out, in the section cited by Wegner, about the >Qustul burner: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But recently an Abydos royal tomb of IIIA has been found [Tomb of U-j - >KGG], so Qustul loses chronological primacy.
Katherine. (!!!sigh!!!) The Qustul burner does not lose anything, are you on cough syrup or something? I'll repeat, you did not take the time to consider much of the evidence pointed out here, you simply cut and pasted where you thought it made sense. Good grief, that isn't scholarship.
>There are unusual objects in Egyptian style at Qustul, but they are all >likely to have been imports from Egypt, not products of Nubia.
By the way Katherine, who are the objects imported to, the enemies? This is funny.
Two >vessels, for example, have painted designs, according to Williams, the >conquest of southern Egypt (Ta shemau) and of Hierakanopolis, a town of >that region; but the worn signs may be misread, and in any case would >refer to conquests by the Egyptians _by_ Egyptians, since the vases are >of Egyptian origin.
Katherine, this is sad. Egyptology 101, take it.
>A stone incense burner [the Qustul burner - KGG] is of special >importance. It was carved with motifs Egyptian in style and content [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Egypt, or decorated by Egyptian artisans, as a special gift for the >ruler of Qustul of the day.
A special gift is considered a TRIBUTE to a King or Pharaoh. Here now are the intellectual acrobatics Katherine will now go through to explain their position? Here is where Katherine is going to explain to everyone who the "ruler of Qustul of the day" is so that we once and for all know who the Pharaoh was in ancient Nubia, or Egypt's founding father of Predynastic Egypt? Prey tell.
>unification. But compared to contemporary graves in Egypt, this tomb is >poor indeed and a late expression of emerging social-economic class >distinctions; and there is clearly an attempt to import the ritual >paraphernalia already associated with emergent Egyptian kingship (e.g., >the maceheads and palette)." [Hoffman, 1979: 260]
<snip>
HOFFMAN, Hoffman, Hoffman...you quoted him before. After researching his position, we learn that he states to learn about the Ancient Egyptians, one finds an African substratum. Exactly, Hoffman states that himself. So do you want to continue using this scholar for your references, Katherine?
>Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) >Member, International Association of Egyptologists [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Oxford University >Oxford, United Kingdom
King Merenptah - next time read the entire text before cutting and pasting, please! And answer the questions, directly...can you do that?
>>The site was nearly two hundred miles deep in the heart of a country the >>Egyptians had called Ta-Seti - "Land of the Bow." Here in this remote corner [quoted text clipped - 313 lines] >> >>King Merenptah Reply to this Message [Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] King Merenptah - 13 Apr 2004 00:43 GMT >Subject: Re: The artifacts speak: Ancient Qustul (Ta-Seti) - Egypt's Founder >From: "Jon Erlandson" jerlands@comcast.net [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/qustul.gif >http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/Egyptgallery07.html
Your example of the incense burner and its representation is a good one. It clearly shows a pharoah sitting on a throne facing SOUTH, with a depiction of Horus too, while the boat in front of him is facing North with two occupants, one sitting and one standing, sailing to a Temple, namely Egypt.
And this was found WHERE? Qustul Nubia, South of Egypt - where the first signs of royalty are now preserved and well documented.
This post creates many problems for the traditional Egyptologists I know.
King Merenptah Reply to this Message [Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Katherine Griffis-Greenberg - 13 Apr 2004 08:31 GMT >>Subject: Re: The artifacts speak: Ancient Qustul (Ta-Seti) - Egypt's Founder >>From: "Jon Erlandson" jerlands@comcast.net [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>apply here, and I have you Katherine to thank for leading me to this very >>important area.
I suggest you read more, then, for it's not in MY imagination, as I provided no less than 2 other interpretations of the burner from Egyptologists other than myself.
Erlandson noted: >>Interesting that the image from the burner features three boats. >>You know, boats, travel, trade... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >And this was found WHERE? Qustul Nubia, South of Egypt - where the first signs >of royalty are now preserved and well documented.
And directionality you determined how? The Qustul burner was circular in form (I've seen the original, where apparently you have not), and so the _direction_ of the boats (and your interpretation) is quite questionable.
I could just as easily argue that since the sail on the second boat is fully unfurled and taut, IT is traveling south against the current (which is how sails are utilised this day in Egypt). Egyptians do not use sails to float with the current, that is, north.
-- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA
Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I found an image very similar to what was speculated to be on this famous fragment
Temple of Buhen, ancient Egyptian settlement situated on the West bank of the Nile below (to the North of) the Second Cataract, Sudan
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ But that is from dynastic time. As I and others stated before, images of a king wearing a white crown and royal barque can be found in rock art throughout Lower Nubia.
posted
I just find it a big stretch to read that Pharoah image into this particular fragment. And what is supposed to be a white crown is too big and it's even lower than a 45 degree angle. Those crowns are worn closer to the vertical only on a slight angle.
^^^^^ this is supposed to be all this:
^^^^ And in the artists line drawing the shape supposed to be a crown is actually larger than the king's torso. It's much to big to have a figure under it. That is too weak to hang a theory on. It's wishful thinking
^^^ look at what is supposed to be legs and feet. That is located on the actual fragment. But when you look at the line the legs is all of the sudden pencil thin and the other legs is a stub. It's assumption that those are legs at all.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yet you are only going by the fragments that remain on the burner. You do realize there are fragments that have broken off the burner which is what the reconstruction is based on. You add that to all the rock paintings found in the Qustul and Sayalah area also showing a king wearing white crown on a barque and well there is nothing "weak" about the theory unlike YOU wacky bonked out theories.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I knew that was where Lioness was going with it. Scholars know that questioning the qustul incense burner leads to a dead end as the incense burner is not the only A-group artifact with a white crown depicted on it. The other thing, is that the white crown isn't the only royal object on that incense burner that Egyptologists associate with royal insignia.
The Qustul Incense Burner demonstrates the close relations between the early Nubian and Egyptian regions and Nubian influence in the genesis of Ancient Egypt: namely the formulation of key indices of royal power, such as the White Crown and related iconography later adopted by the Egyptians of the Early Dynastic Period, or as an example of shared cultural symbols and traditions between the two closely related peoples of the Nile Valley. Whatever the exact influence, the monumental Pharaonic culture was entirely at home in Nubia.
"The white crown, associated in historic times with Upper Egypt, is first attested later than the red crown, but is directly associated with the ruler somewhat earlier. The earliest known depiction of the white crown is on a ceremonial incense burner from Cemetery L and Qustul, in Lower Nubia (Williams 1986: pls 35,38). Tomb L24 contained a variety of prestige objects and in all probability belonged to a late Predynastic king of Lower Nubia, contemporary with the ruler buried in Abydos tomb U-j (*Naqada III2, c, 3150 BC). The Qustul incense burner is a remarkable object of supreme importance for the development of Egyptian royal iconography. The incised scenes around the edge of the object include the representation of a seated ruler, wearing the tall white crown. Evidence of close contacts between the rulers and their contemporaries at Heraknopolis may support the theory that the white crown originated at the latter site..
The Narmer Palate indicates that the white crown was the superior of the two crowns, since the figure of the king wearing the white crown is significantly larger than the figure wearing the red crown. The superiority of the white crown may have derived from its intimate association with the royal line of Hierakonpolis, which played a decisive role in the unification of Egypt. The white crown retained this superiority throughout Egyptian history. More than simple items of regalia, the red and white crowns were imbued with magical significance and were worshipped as cult objects in their own right."
"O'Connor has argued that the incense burner was made in Egypt or decorated by Egyptians and presented to a ruler of Qustul as a gift (O'Connor 1993: 21). It has been argued that incense burners are, however, unknown in Egypt and so it would seem unlikely that Egyptian craftsmen would make something so unfamiliar in order to send it to Nubia.. An alternative explanation is that these images of rulership- the seated figure with white crown the high prowed barque, the standards, falcon and serekhs- may have been ling shared as such. In other words the region of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia had a common cultural tradition. Can we see this as a gift from one ruler to another, i.e. among equals? The iconography would presumably only be significant in a gift if it was understood by the recipient. Williams himself has argued that the design elements of the Qustul incense burner are to be found throughout the Egyptian Nile Valley from Naqada II on (Williams 1986:144).. While these motifs may not have had the same precise meanings in their Egyptian contexts (Pittman 1996: 13-14) it can be suggested that at an early date (at least Naqada II) there was a movement of ideas as well as objects in this case and a burgeoning elite, and that certainly the Nile River would have facilitated the fluidity of such exchanges.... Williams is partly justified in stating that "it indicates that monumental Pharaonic culture was entirely at home in Nubia", at least among a certain group, and that it highlights closer ties between Egyptian and its southern neighbours."
--Jane Roy. 2011. The Politics of Trade: Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th Millennium BC. 215-217
Scholar Nancy Lovell studied dental traits among some high status persons of the key Egyptian Naqada group and found that they resembled the peoples of Nubia.
"A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at Predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently non-elite cemeteries and that the non-elite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighboring 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 populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt."
--(T. Prowse, and N. Lovell "Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt". American journal of physical anthropology. 1996, vol. 101, no2, pp. 237-246 (2 p.1/4)
-------------------- 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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic