posted
Kmt (Egypt) was colloquially known as Sinwaj Tawy meaning the 'Two Lands' in reference to Ta Mehu (Lower Egypt) and Ta Shemau (Upper Egypt) which were originally two countries that were united into a single nation by kings from Ta Shemau so the tradition goes. Prior to unification, culturally Ta Shemau was represented by Naqada Culture while Ta Mehu was represented by Maadi-Merimde Culture. Because the latter shows many affinities to Libyan culture, I proposed the notion that the people of Mehu were ethnically closer to Libyans. Tukuler in response created a thread on the topic here. But was there originally a third land or country in the southern region of Ta Shemau? Many people forget that Nubian A-Group/Qustul Culture was not only native to Lower Nubia but also southern Upper Egypt from modern Aswan to Kubanniya which covers the territories of the first two nomes.
Tukuler also brought up in another thread the relevant following:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
So why not try using Tawy and Ta Mri sometimes?
Surely you know what AEs called the people immediately south of them in that period.
Ta Seti.nwt is a remembrance that Ta Zeti.xast once ruled the valley clear up to Nag el Hasaya in what was later the 2nd Nome, Heru's Throne.
=-=-=-=
quote:Originally posted by Dj:
There is no question that Nabta Kiseiba spawned Ta-Seti, but whether Ta-Seti spawned Ta-Shemau is still a matter of debate. It's true there is evidence to suggest Ta-Seti is older than Ta-Shemau but to say one gave rise to the other is something else completely. So far Egyptologists seem to be conceding that Ta-Shamau shares a common ancestry with Ta-Seti. But then there is oldest known depiction of a pharaoh in Nag el-Hamdulab.
.
The evidence of physical anthropology and culture of TaShemaw and TaSeti is enough to show who's more indebted to whom.
From what I can gather some of TaSeti's elites seemingly were the governors of pre-dynastic Naqada who's upper echelon per Prowse and Lovell (1996)
... is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt.
Apparently there was a schism of TaSeti and Naqada nobility making for TaShemaw independence and ascendency. For one, widescale adoption of writing marks TaShemaw's departure from TaSeti.
But it was TaSeti which became known as the rebel state, i.e., Wawat. TaSeti lost all the territory that was hers clear up to Nag el Hasaya, just south of Edfu, in what would become the 2nd nome of Upper Egypt (Heru's Throne) immediately north of the 1st nome TaSeti.nwt in distinction to the state TaSeti.khast officially extending from Aswan, or the 1st cataract, southward to the Batn Hagar.
Since the late Egyptologist Bruce Trigger discovered the predynastic royal tombs of Qustul and Ballana in the 1970s, he proposed a theory that it was Qustuli Nubians who were the true originators of pharaonic culture instead of Naqadans. He based this not only on the royal tombs he discovered but the traces of proto-hieroglyphs in Sayalah rocks. Many Egyptologists have countered his hypothesis based on more recent discoveries of predynastic royal tombs found in Abydos in the late 2001s including the use of proto-hieroglyph on small clay tags. Yet these royal tombs date to 3400 BC which falls in the Middle Naqada (II) times (approx. 3650–3300 BC) while the royal tombs of Qustul date as early as 3800 BC which is in the Early Naqada (I) times (approx. 4000–3650 BC). Furthermore, the oldest known depiction of a ruler wearing the hedjet (white crown) is found in the western desert just north of Aswan and hence in Setiu territory. Also interesting is that the Egyptians named their sepati (nomes) from south to north starting with Aswan which they called by the names Ta Khentit-- Land of Foremost as well Ta Seti-- Land of the Bow. This latter name was also the same exact name they used for the rival kingdom in Lower Nubia who again were of the same culture. The difference was that by Middle Naqada (II) times the A-Group area of Upper Egypt was already assimilated into the Naqada cultural and presumably political sphere according to the finds of Egyptologists like Maria Gatto who claims cultural entanglement. Hence the sepat was called Ta-Seti Nwt in contrast to the Nubian kingdom of Ta-Seti Khast as Tukuler pointed out.
Ta Setinwt vs. khast
That the Setiu of Egypt including their leaders allied with the Naqadans against their kinsmen south of the first cataract speaks volumes to the issue of ethnicity vs. polity. Perhaps the political influence of the Setiu Kings of Qustul proper had little to no reach beyond the first cataract. Perhaps the local Setiu rulers of southern Shemau had already made political alliances of their own with the Naqadan elites including intermarriage. Maybe it's a combination of both. There's evidence that, unsurprisingly, it was Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) that had the most interaction with the southernmost nomes. For those who may not be aware, the prevailing theory of state formation in Egypt is that of the so-called 'Thinite Confederacy'. According to this theory which is based on the claims of Manetho that the first two dynasties were Thinite, by Naqada II times there were three confederacies based on three states in Shemau comprised of Thinis, Nubt (Naqada), and Nekhen, with the first gaining supremacy over the other two. Further support for this theory was confirmed by the archaeological findings in Abydos which was under Thinite control and was a cultic and royal mortuary site. There is evidence to suggest a process of coalescence or consolidation of power with there being multiple smaller confederations led by other sepat members like Nowet (Thebes) and Shesheshet, and probably even Aata and Akhmin at one point. The southernmost two nomes Wetjes-Hor and Ta-Seti seem to be missing in this action, but by then were under the Nekhen confederacy. In fact, there is an alternative theory among some Egyptologists which suggests proto-pharaonic culture began in Nekhen at least before that of Thinis. The problem is that I haven't heard much about the predynastic findings of the two sepati south of Nekhen.
Egyptologist Aaron de Souza correctly refutes the idea of Lower Nubia as being totally foreign to Egypt and having nothing culturally in common with it when in reality Lower Nubian culture especially A-Group was culturally intermediate between Egypt and other Nile African cultures further south which is the subject of his InBetween Blog. Well I go even further to suggest that it was Naqada Culture that was 'in between' and intermediate to Qustul Culture to their south and Maadi-Merimda Culture to their north. As such, Nekhen then would have been the frontier or border sepat for Naqada Culture and the two nomes to which it later ruled over was originally of 'foreign' territory yet as Gatto pointed out, Naqada had more in common with A-Group than they did with Maadi-Merimda in the Delta. So the conflict with Ta-Seti khast was more political than ethnic. The story goes that by the First Dynasty, Shemau was able to defeat and vanquish Ta-Seti Khast once and for all and in doing so returning with thousands of prisoners-- men, women, and children as well as their livestock mostly cattle. I believe this massive importation was part of Kmt's policy of forced assimilation long before the Kushite threat. Shemau always had the military advantage over Seti Khast in terms of greater numbers of men due to more extensive agricultural land. And yes I know that despite this mass importation of Setiu, Lower Nubia was never completely depopulated as evidenced by so-called 'B-Group'. So Ta Shemau more or less swallowed Ta-Seti is my conclusion.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is just another example of what happens when people take the data and force it to fit preconceived notions. There was no Nubia. The culture of the Upper Nile was shared among various populations stretching back tens of thousands of years. And many of the elements of what became the KMT Tawy came from that. But they also added more complexity on top of that foundation.
Naquada is "Nubia" as the actual name of the town in Mdu Ntr is "Nubt" and means "gold trading town". So literally the Naqada culture was a culture based off gold trade which made it wealthy. That gold trade and know how didn't just pop up from nowhere though. So like most of the foundational elements of the culture of the Nile these things came from the South. And many of the key gold mines lay in the South, precisely in what they call "Nubia". So there shouldn't be any doubt that these populations were the first to excavate gold long before KMT was born.
The other thing to remember is that the fluctuating environmental conditions caused populations to move in and out of certain areas over time. And the only reason for the rise of populations in the lower nile was because of a large volume of water and wide fertile flood plain that eventually developed North of Aswan. Prior to that this river was much different and flood plains not very wide, which is why there are long periods of no human activity in parts of the Nile. So it is most likely that environmental conditions at some point before 4000 BC made the region between Wadi Kubbaniya and the 2nd Cataract more suitable for habitation. And then those areas dried up and those populations moved north.
quote: Late Palaeolithic site chronology
From the calibrated conventional and AMS available 14C dates (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Data 1), some of which are now rather old with a large standard error, and for some probably without an adapted fractionation, it can be observed that mainly two periods of occupation are present; a first from about 23 until 20 ka calBP and a later one from about 16 until 14 ka calBP. In between the number of data is more restricted. During Heinrich Event 2 and the LGM an important cooling and dryness was observed (Krom et al., 2002), which coincides with the start of an important increase of human presence along the Nile in Upper Egypt.
There came an end to the visibility of human presence after 13 ka calBP and for a long period of several millennia no sites have been documented in Upper Egypt, except some rare Epipalaeolithic sites around 9.0 ka calBP (Vermeersch, 1978). Only with the end of the Holocene pluvial at about 5.5 ka calBP when Predynastic culture is developing, is a high number of sites observed in the area (Kuper and Kröpelin, 2006). 3. Natural environment according to earlier authors
Vignard (1923) discovered and published a sequence of new Palaeolithic industries described as Sebilian I, II, and III, from a series of platform-like ridges situated 3 km west of Kom Ombo. He interpreted these discoveries as occupation sites on the shores of a progressively shrinking lake, fed by local wadi systems, which had been dammed up behind Gebel Silsila for most of Palaeolithic times. According to Butzer (1967) there is no reason for assuming the existence of a large lake in the Nile Valley of southern Egypt. Butzer and Hansen (1968: 115) concluded that, at Kom Ombo, the Late Palaeolithic aggradation stage was the result of two or more major Nile channels, presumably braided. The main Fatira Channel near Kom Ombo was formed by peak discharges in the order of 10,300 m3/s (the mean measured discharge at Aswan was 7500 m3/s for 1912–73) (Butzer, 1997).
During the Late Pleistocene, the Mediterranean Sea was some 100 m lower. In response the Nile channel and distributaries were entrenched up to 30 m below the present surface of the delta. Just how far this incision was projected upvalley is uncertain (Butzer, 1997). However it seems acceptable that the entrenchment did not affect the Nile in Upper Egypt south of Nagaa Hammadi.
Williams and Adamson (1980) and Adamson et al. (1982) concluded from their work in the Nile headwaters that the river Nile during the end of the Last Glacial may have been so restricted that it did not flow during the dry season, and water may have been confined to pools in the deeper parts of the channels during much of the year.
Wendorf and Schild (1976), Schild (1987) and Schild and Wendorf (1989) proposed a model of the Late Pleistocene Nilotic behaviour where during alluviation the rainy season in the headwaters was shorter but still intense, and the total discharge was much less than today. With reduced stream competence and an increased sediment load, the Nile became a river flowing in numbers of braided channels across a floodplain, which rose continuously as more and more sediment was deposited. The Final Pleistocene Nile in Lower Nubia and Egypt could well have had an annual discharge only 10–20% of its modern volume. They agree that it is difficult to imagine this river: a comparatively small stream with a floodplain cut by several ephemeral braided channels, with little or no flowing water, but with each year a large flood after the seasonal rains at the headwaters. A series of exceptionally high floods, which may correlate with renewed flow from the White Nile, resulted in a final phase of silt accumulation on top of the sediments of a seepage lake at Wadi Kubbaniya, with a maximum elevation some 27 m above the modern flood plain. In reaction to the Schild–Wendorf model, Butzer (1997) replied that the Late Pleistocene record appears to be oversimplified, by implicitly referring apparent stages to an artificial model of aggrading or stable floodplains. The model of a highly braided river was nevertheless reaffirmed by Schild and Wendorf (2010).
According to Paulissen and Vermeersch (1987) the Nile Valley in Upper Egypt and Nubia was a suspended-load river and was aggrading silts over a wide floodplain. The Shuwikhat silts, with their top dated to about 25 ka are the oldest dated Upper Palaeolithic silts. They are separated from the silts of the subsequent Sahaba-Darau or Kubbaniya aggradation by a period of Nile down-cutting. The Wild Nile floods at 13–12 ka BP (15.5–14 ka calBP) were the most important catastrophic event in the Late Pleistocene history of the Nile.
In order to understand the geomorphology of the Nile Valley in Upper Egypt, one should not only take into account what happened in the headwaters of the river Nile but also what happened in the adjacent area, the Sahara, where aeolian activity was severe during the Last Glacial (Swezey, 2001). Swezey (2001) refers to some of the Wendorf–Schild sites (E9-12) as dated aeolian Quaternary localities, which he interprets in his Fig. 2 as being “times of eolian stabilization (by vegetation and/or pedogenic crusts) and burial by subaqueous deposits”. In that interpretation the LGM appears as a period of sediment stabilization without aeolian sediment mobilization. Such an interpretation is incorrect; the field data do not indicate the absence of aeolian activity. An alternation of aeolian and water sediments was clearly documented at the site of Wadi Kubbaniya, not registered in Swezey's contribution (Wendorf et al., 1989, cf. many profiles such as Fig. 3.35 and for more detail Fig. 28.5).
And because of this migration you get the rise in populations of Upper Egypt leading to the dynastic era. All of these groups were from the South and that included elements from Nabta Playa, Wadi Halfa and other locations between the 1st and 2nd cataracts.
And keep in mind "Ta Seti" was always part of the dynastic state. So implying that Ta Seti means "nubian" as in foreigner is misleading and false. It represents the elements of what cam eout of that region to the south as they moved North. But the Naqada/Nubt culture also emerged from that as well.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Egyptologist Aaron de Souza correctly refutes the idea of Lower Nubia as being totally foreign to Egypt and having nothing culturally in common with it when in reality Lower Nubian culture especially A-Group was culturally intermediate between Egypt and other Nile African cultures further south which is the subject of his InBetween Blog. Well I go even further to suggest that it was Naqada Culture that was 'in between' and intermediate to Qustul Culture to their south and Maadi-Merimda Culture to their north.
That's probably true, but wouldn't the cultures of the Nile Valley all constitute a chain of intermediaries linking the Saharan/Sudanic and Mediterranean regions? You could say in turn that the Maadi/Merimda cultures were intermediaries between the Mediterranean basin and the cultures further upriver, or maybe a gateway into Africa.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: That's probably true, but wouldn't the cultures of the Nile Valley all constitute a chain of intermediaries linking the Saharan/Sudanic and Mediterranean regions? You could say in turn that the Maadi/Merimda cultures were intermediaries between the Mediterranean basin and the cultures further upriver, or maybe a gateway into Africa.
That is precisely what I'm saying. Before unification there was a chain of different cultures living along the Nile and yes the Delta culture along the coast and into the Sinai would have been the 'gateway' into Africa not Nubia. There was an old book published back in the 70s when Qustul was discovered I remember skimming through years ago in college. It was entitled Nubia: Gateway to Africa. As if Egypt wasn't African.
^ Naqada is in between Maadi-Merimde and A-Group/Qustul. However, note that its proximity to Qustul is much closer which leads me to believe Qustul Culture had much to do with the state building process of Kmt far more than the Delta culture.
I forgot to mention that the Egyptian sepat (nome) was originally a tribe, thus the sepat confederacies in predynastic times were tribal confederacies and so the khrj tp'ah (nomarch) was a 'Great Chieftain'. The Great Chief who lead a confederacy became a type of prince or proto-form of nsw (king).
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Doug, as long as you've been in this forum you know darn well that 'Nubia' was first coined by the Romans for the land bordering Egypt to its south. Nubia has NO etymology in Latin and the only language it comes closest to is the Egyptian word Nubt which means 'golden' in plural form. 'Nubt' was the name Egyptians had for several cities including the major state of whose site archaeologists called 'Naqada'. But Roman 'Nubia' like Greek 'Aethiopia' was the designation for Egypt's southern neighbor. The Egyptians' actual name for their southern neighbor was Ta Nhsy and its inhabitants Nahasu.
Ta Nhsy
The glyph for nhs is a guinea fowl and scholars still aren't sure of its exact meaning or significance, though it may have something to do with the word rhyt which means a specific people or ethne and is represented by a glyph in the form of a lapwing bird.
Ta-Nhsy was the land beyond the 1st cataract but as I already mentioned and Tukuler has shown there was a distinction between Ta Seti nwt which was the 1st nome and Ta Seti khst which was the kingdom of Qustul past the 1st cataract. Ta Seti was one culture but politically it was divided.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Doug, as long as you've been in this forum you know darn well that 'Nubia' was first coined by the Romans for the land bordering Egypt to its south. Nubia has NO etymology in Latin and the only language it comes closest to is the Egyptian word Nubt which means 'golden' in plural form. 'Nubt' was the name Egyptians had for several cities including the major state of whose site archaeologists called 'Naqada'. But Roman 'Nubia' like Greek 'Aethiopia' was the designation for Egypt's southern neighbor. The Egyptians' actual name for their southern neighbor was Ta Nhsy and its inhabitants Nahasu.
Ta Nhsy
The glyph for nhs is a guinea fowl and scholars still aren't sure of its exact meaning or significance, though it may have something to do with the word rhyt which means a specific people or ethny and is represented by the glyph in the form of a lapwing bird.
Ta-Nhsy was the land beyond the 1st cataract but as I already mentioned and Tukuler has shown there was a distinction between Ta Seti nwt which was the 1st nome and Ta Seti khst which was the kingdom of Qustul past the 1st cataract. Ta Seti was one culture but politically it was divided.
As I said, there was no "Nubia" as you just verified. Obviously that is in reference to the predynastic and dynastic era as this is what the thread is referring to. Not sure how that is not obvious or even a point of contention. I don't see where there is any actual disagreement.
At the end of the day,the whole evolution of the dynastic state was based on unifying all the various cultures and populations along the Nile into a unified nation. As such "Ta Seti" was part of that unification and represents the culture from that part of the Nile around Aswan. That would have included populations migrating from further South as that part of the Nile dried up over the previous centuries. And whatever populations remained further South were not part of that unification. So it is definitely a political distinction between the populations within Ta Seti in the dynastic kingdom and those more southern populations in the southern regions as you indicated.
The point is that regardless of the political unification, that does not change the fact that all of the core cultural elements flowed from the South to begin with. The people flowed from the South and from the Sahara, the pottery, pastoralism, donkeys, various deities and so forth. All of which predate the political unification. Just like today many African cultural traditions span national borders. And also, another key is the fact that gold trade was an important element of the economy of both the dynastic era and those preceding eras in that same region as well, with Nubt a central hub for this trade in the early dynastic. And in that context the only "Nubians" of the predynastic were those gold traders from Nubt and surrounding areas, which has nothing to do with ethnicity and is more tied to the history of gold mining and trading in the region.
Unfortunately the main reason why this region between the first and second cataract is not seen in its proper historical context is because of Lake Nasser. Given all the stuff found there during the hasty excavations prior to the inundation, there obviously is a lot more that was not found that would be key to understanding the proper flow of culture from this region into the North prior to the dynastic era.
But besides all of that, that narrative of "Nubia" is all about promoting a fake separation between so called "Egypt" as non African and "Nubia" as African. With even those claiming to promote African history along the Nile still clinging to that distinction:
quote: An Early Kingdom in the Land of the Bow: The A-Group, 3800-3100 B.C.
The first continuous agricultural tradition in Africa, the Sudanese-Saharan Neolithic, developed almost ten thousand years ago in country west of Nubia that is now desert.
The Nile Valley in Egypt had been inhospitable, but in the seasonally dry channels of the Second Cataract, early farmers learned to manage parts of the river's annual flood. This knowledge could then be applied in Egypt's wide floodplain, giving rise to the great sequence of Upper Egypt's early civilizations.
Starts off good. First agricultural traditions in Africa are found in the Halfan and Silisan and other cultures along the region between the first and second cataracts going back thousands of years before the predynastic. Which means the dynastic culture and its neolithic practices were also African.... but lets see if they actually follow that line of logic.
quote: Upper Egypt soon grew wealthy and its culture expanded again into Nubia, where renewed southern contacts gave rise to the first of Nubia's trading cultures, called the A-Group. Incense, copper, gold, objects of shell, and semiprecious stones were traded northward in return for manufactured articles and probably agricultural produce.
And here arises the contradiction. The A-Group was a predynastic culture as they say themselves. They also say that the areas inhabited by the A-Group were the innovators of the Saharan Sudanese Neolithic. Which also means they were the innovators of social complexity. But notice how they flip it backwards in the next paragraph. The A-Group as they call it (which I don't agree with because it is part of this fake "Nubian" paradigm that didn't exist), somehow weren't traders until the "Egyptians" expanded, but there was no "Egypt" in the predynastic. So what on earth are they talking about here?
quote: Most surprising, evidence that early pharaohs ruled in A-Group Nubia was discovered by the Oriental Institute at Qustul, almost at the modern Sudanese border. A cemetery of large tombs contained evidence of wealth and representations of the rulers and their victories. Other representations and monuments could then be identified, and in the process, a lost kingdom, called Ta-Seti or Land of the Bow, was discovered. In fact, the cemetery at Qustul leads directly to the first great royal monuments of Egypt in a progression. Qustul in Nubia could well have been the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty.
So like I said in my first post, they are trying to force the historical facts and data to fit into this "Nubian" paradigm that didn't exist extending into prehistory, which leads to this confusion about the nature of the relationship between "Ta Seti" the nome and "Ta Seti" the ancient predynastic culture to the South.
A paper by Maria Gatto describing the history of the concept of the "A-Group" and "Nubia" within Egyptology and how it only serves to try and distinguish "Nubia" as "African" from "Egyptian" as "other". Even though both of them are African and come from the same source. And as you read this paper, you will see clearly that most of these distinctions they are trying to make between so-called "Nubian" cultures and predynastic "Egyptian" cultures are completely arbitrary.
quote: Introduction
Although the Nubian A-Group culture has been in the last century the subject of many important studies, and it is definitely one of the best known cultures in the prehistory of northeastern Africa, an updated revision of our knowledge, to include also the last findings from regions surrounding Lower Nubia, is missing. I shall use this opportunity to present a preliminary assessment of the state of the art, mainly focused on the new information acquired recently and its significance. I had the occasion to discuss with Francis Geus about the late prehistory of Nubia many times when I was working with him in 2003 on the Sudanese Prehistoric pottery from El Multaga. He was quite skeptical on my idea on the existence of more variants of the A-Group. For him the real A-Group was that described by Nordstrom in the 1970’s. In a way he was right.
History of research
The A-Group culture was discovered at the beginning of the Twentieth century during the first archaeological salvage campaign, undertaken in the Egyptian Nubia for the construction of the Aswan Dam. A reassessment of its definition was the consequence of another salvage campaign, this time organized, in the 1960’s and in the Sudanese Nubia, by the UNESCO for the construction of Sadd el Ali, south of Aswan.
George A. Reisner, the archaeologist who worked in the Aswan area during the 1907/1908 season, was the first who identified evidence of non-Egyptian cultures south of the First Cataract (Reisner 1910). He divided them in "groups" labeled following the alphabetic letters: from the A-Group to the X-Group.
This definition concerned only historic cultures while the prehistoric evidence was interpreted as Egyptian and followed the classification proposed in those years by Petrie for the Predynastic period (Petrie 1974). However, according to Reisner, there was a chronological shift between the Egyptian Predynastic and that from Nubia. As a matter of fact, at that time Egypt was seen as the nuclear area for cultural dynamics along the Nile, so the Nubian evidence had to be younger in date compared to the Egyptian one. In Reisner’s chronological sequence the term A-Group defined the last phase of the Nubian prehistory, sup- posed to be contemporary to the end of Naqada III (sensu Kaiser 1956; 1957) and the first two Egyptian dynasties (ca. 3100-2800 BC).
And this idea of "Egypt" being some self contained population separate from the surrounding African cultures that preceded it, is all based on these ideas coming out of Egyptology in the 1800s. Even though all the facts state otherwise.All of it centers around Egyptology refusing to call these previous phases "African" when obviously all the populations and cultures are in Africa. Which is why the predynastic period going back to 4,000 BC and prior is called "Egyptian" even though no dynastic unification had occurred and most of the advanced sites existed in and around Nubt (Naqada) in the South all in Africa. And all of this completely ignores the environmental factors showing that preceding periods of the Nile did not favor human settlement in many areas which means these populations migrated and settled there from other parts of Africa. But they won't call Naqada by its proper name as 'Nubt' because that again comes too close to "nubian".
quote: Before setting out in more detail the ideas that inform this overview, I consider the establishment of Predynastic Egypt’s temporal scale, not just because it has always been integral to the period’s definition (Hendrickx 2006; Köhler 2011a; Spencer 2011) but because it has been central to its interpretation (Stevenson 2015a). Sequence dating of the Predynastic was famously established by Flinders Petrie (1899) through the application of gradualist, cultural-evolutionary frameworks to assemblages of funerary ceramics from the Upper Egyptian cemeteries of Naqada, Ballas, and Diospolis Parva (Hu/Hiw) (Fig. 1). Assumptions concerning the steady development of society remain implicit within this original scheme and subsequent chronologies. Consequently, gradualist thinking has continued to influence explanatory accounts of Predynastic development (e.g., Hoffman 1979, p. 117; Köhler 2010, p. 37; Midant-Reynes 2000, p. 255; Savage 2001a, p. 101).
Kaiser (1957) and Hendrickx (1996, 2006) reworked Petrie’s innovative system into the “Naqada chronology,” and it has continued to be scrutinized and refined, primarily in the development of localized site chronologies (Buchez 2011a; Hartmann 2011a, b; Hendrickx 2011a; Jucha and Mączyńska 2011; Stevenson 2009a, pp. 25–40). These efforts were undertaken with a view to establishing regional patterns of pottery production and consumption (Rowland 2009, 2013, p. 240). Few attempts, however, have been made to interleave this mosaic of increasingly detailed internal chronologies or to synthesize the processes behind the patterns. Temporal nomenclature for the period is consequently crowded with terms following a century of intensive study (Table 1). The most commonly used relative schema is that of Hendrickx (2006), and it is the one employed here.
The number of absolute dates for the Predynastic is still extremely limited in comparison to other areas of world archaeology. This is largely due to Egypt’s antiquities laws, which forbid the export of any archaeological finds, however small, and the absence of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) facilities within the country. Only a handful of estimates have been obtained from recently excavated material (e.g., Friedman et al. 2011, p. 176; Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002), but problems remain in sample selection (Dee et al. 2012), the ad hoc application of dates to archaeological features, and the lack of acknowledgment that multiple dates for single contexts are needed in order to construct chronological frameworks (Levine and Stanish 2014). Scepticism of the utility and veracity of radiometric techniques also persists (Hendrickx 2006; Köhler 2011a), despite improvements in the processing of samples (Dee et al. 2012) and the interpretation of radiometric estimates since the previous syntheses of Hassan (1985; Hassan and Robinson 1987) and Savage (2001b).
Most notable among these advances is the application of Bayesian statistical approaches, which have become standard practice for radiocarbon-based chronological analyses. This technique can enhance the precision of chronometric estimates (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and can make outputs more robust and reliable (Dee and Bronk Ramsey 2014; Lee and Bronk Ramsey 2012). Recent projects have employed these methods to critically assess early Egyptian chronology (Dee et al. 2013, 2014; Rowland 2009, 2013; Stevenson 2015a; Wengrow et al. 2014) and have greatly expanded the available data for early Egypt with the acquisition of more than 100 fresh measurements on organic materials from museum collections. The resulting Bayesian models have challenged previous generalizations that stretched Predynastic sociopolitical developments smoothly and evenly across the fourth millennium BC. Rather than the Predynastic being neatly bookended by millennial transitions, these models have confirmed the extension of fifth millennium cultural practices well into the fourth, while reducing Naqada I–III to around 700 years (Table 2). The timeline for the First Dynasty now has a generational-scale resolution, including a chronometric estimate for the accession of king Aha (c. 3080 BC), who is often considered the founding ruler of the First Dynasty.
But there are some scholars putting the evolution of the Nile into its proper African context:
quote: Summary: Although there are problems with the archaeology of the region, relatively few sites are known to the Lower (Egyptian) Nile Valley from 8500 to 5300 Before Christ (B.C.). Sites instead are mostly located further west in the Sahara during the Holocene “wet” phase, which made the area habitable until its gradual desiccation beginning around 5300 B.C. with the final desiccation took hold around 3500 B.C. Archaeologically visible finds reappear in large numbers along the Valley after 5300 B.C., showing a vast cultural continuity, seen in the form of similar funerary complexes from Middle Egypt to Khartoum in the Sudan and limited ceramic parallels beginning around 4800 B.C. Commonalities include matching burial practices and inclusions, including adornments, tools,black-topped/black-mouthed and tulip-shaped ceramics. Also, this particular set of practices and inclusions is markedly different from that of cultures found north of Middle Egypt. Thus, this similarity is significant in that it provides evidence of Egypt’s cultural connections with the Sudan during what may be the earliest phases of the Predynastic — the Tasian and Badarian, which eventually lead into the Naqada culture. This paper will outline the extent of these similarities. Regional patterns are evident in the distribution of these features. More work needs to be done on the implications of this; however, a common belief system may be a possible interpretation.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Doug, as long as you've been in this forum you know darn well that 'Nubia' was first coined by the Romans for the land bordering Egypt to its south. Nubia has NO etymology in Latin and the only language it comes closest to is the Egyptian word Nubt which means 'golden' in plural form. 'Nubt' was the name Egyptians had for several cities including the major state of whose site archaeologists called 'Naqada'. But Roman 'Nubia' like Greek 'Aethiopia' was the designation for Egypt's southern neighbor. The Egyptians' actual name for their southern neighbor was Ta Nhsy and its inhabitants Nahasu.
Ta Nhsy
The glyph for nhs is a guinea fowl and scholars still aren't sure of its exact meaning or significance, though it may have something to do with the word rhyt which means a specific people or ethny and is represented by the glyph in the form of a lapwing bird.
Ta-Nhsy was the land beyond the 1st cataract but as I already mentioned and Tukuler has shown there was a distinction between Ta Seti nwt which was the 1st nome and Ta Seti khst which was the kingdom of Qustul past the 1st cataract. Ta Seti was one culture but politically it was divided. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Doug, as long as you've been in this forum you know darn well that 'Nubia' was first coined by the Romans for the land bordering Egypt to its south.
Modern people of this region call themselves "Nubian" and there is a Nubian Museum in Aswan. Nevertheless Doug considers "Nubia" a term invented by Roman colonizers that has become proxy for meaning "the blacks" if not analogous to the n word
So if you want to discuss any detail pertaining to people in this region with Doug you can do it as long as you don't use that word
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The modern name of 'Nubia' comes from the current Nilo-Saharan speaking auto-ethnonym 'Nuba' and is purely coincidental to ancient Nubia/Nubt.
To Doug, you seem to have an issue with certain writings that you cite from those scholars. Take it up with them. But in the meantime, the Egyptians did distinguish the land to their south as Ta-Nhsy which is what Greeks called 'Aethiopia' and Romans 'Nubia'.
But getting back to my original point, the Egyptians did distinguish Ta-Seti khst, that is foreign, from Ta Seti the 1st sepat. Hence you have this petroglyph in Lower Ta-Nhsy dating to the 1st Dynasty showing a victory by Hor-Aha over the native foes.
To complicate things slightly further here is a 2003 paper explaining how Lower Nubia also underwent a similar process of unification via conflict with Sayala and Qustul once two separate polities before being unified but by then it was too late beause Shemau was already united.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The modern name of 'Nubia' comes from the current Nilo-Saharan speaking auto-ethnonym 'Nuba' and is purely coincidental to ancient Nubia/Nubt.
To Doug, you seem to have an issue with certain writings that you cite from those scholars. Take it up with them. But in the meantime, the Egyptians did distinguish the land to their south as Ta-Nhsy which is what Greeks called 'Aethiopia' and Romans 'Nubia'.
But getting back to my original point, the Egyptians did distinguish Ta-Seti khst, that is foreign, from Ta Seti the 1st sepat. Hence you have this petroglyph in Lower Ta-Nhsy dating to the 1st Dynasty showing a victory by Hor-Aha over the native foes.
To complicate things slightly further here is a 2003 paper explaining how Lower Nubia also underwent a similar process of unification via conflict with Sayala and Qustul once two separate polities before being unified but by then it was too late beause Shemau was already united.
I don't know what the issue here is because there is no disagreement other than semantics, which is the point of the thread. There was no ancient "nubia" is a fact and the reason that I am calling it out is because scholarship on the subject links all of them together as one entity and really doesn't make a distinction. Ta Seti, Ta Nehesi , Nubia and Africa are synonyms in most scholarship. Therefore, to get to the ancient distinction between Ta Seti as the first nome and the older independent kingdom of Ta Seti and the later Ta Nehesu, you would need to use other means of distinguishing the two groups other than "Nubian". Other than that, I am not in disagreement with your point in general, other than the semantics of the term. Because everybody doesn't use the term 'Nubia' in the same way and that is why I don't use it. Like I have said many times before, nobody uses the term France for the same region 5,000 years ago. And that same logic applies to "Nubia" and coming to a better understanding of the actual cultural and political distinctions on the Nile in the predynastic and early dynastic.
In the various papers I noted they all seem to say that Qustul, which is near the second cataract was the home of the so called "A-Group" which likely aligns with the original seat of power of Ta Seti. Qustul is near the 2nd Cataract. So it could be that an element of the A-Group was absorbed into the early dynastic state which became the first Nome, while remnants of the original Ta-Seti based in Qustul remained separate after dynastic unification. Which goes back to your point about Ta Seti the frontier or Ta Nehesi.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:nobody uses the term France for the same region 5,000 years ago.
Sometimes, at least earlier, one could hear French people even talk about ancient cave painters from Chauvet or Lascaux cave as the first Frenchmen, mostly out of convenience.
Recently an archaeologist here in Sweden made a TV series named "The first Swedes" which started about 12 000 years ago. But he explained in the program that the state of Sweden of course did not exist back then.
So many of these terms are used for convenience, even if those terms were not used by the ancients.
Btw, what did the C group people, or the people of Kerma and other ancient Kushites call themselves? I do not mean the Egyptian names but their own names.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It's likely that the Egyptian ethnonyms were the actual names since the term Wwt for C-Group and Kshli for Kerma do not have exact etymologies in Egyptian. There is an 18th Dynasty tomb inscription in Thebes documenting the geography of Nubia and Punt using multiple names for the different districts and peoples that I'm desperately trying to find.
And to Doug, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing is all I got to say.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It's likely that the Egyptian ethnonyms were the actual names since the term Wwt for C-Group and Kshli for Kerma do not have exact etymologies in Egyptian.
Do you mean to say that the proper term for Kushite is "Kushli"? I remember you using that term before.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It's likely that the Egyptian ethnonyms were the actual names since the term Wwt for C-Group and Kshli for Kerma do not have exact etymologies in Egyptian. There is an 18th Dynasty tomb description in Thebes documenting the geography of Nubia and Punt using multiple names for the different districts and peoples that I'm desperately trying to find.
And to Doug, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing is all I got to say.
I wasn't arguing with you, but to your point of 3 lands, there are only two in the dynastic state. Also, not sure what Libyans you are referring to in the Lower Nile. Care to explain how you came to this conclusion they are "Libyans"? What groups are you calling "Libyans"?
As for the 3rd state, I don't see the regions beyond Aswan as the third state. Even though during the dynastic era and especially in the New Kingdom this area between the 1st and 2nd cataracts was annexed into the dynastic state.
The core issue as, I see it, is that if the model of dynastic state formation starts in "the South" somewhere between Wadi Kubbaniya and Wadi Halfa, then the question becomes why did the state evolve northwards instead of southwards. The only logical answer is that the areas to the south dried up and thus were abandoned and any early cultures there moved elsewhere, including to the North. Any remaining populations to the South near the 2nd cataract were likely not associated with the same ones who integrated into the newly emerging dynastic state. Therefore, that region wouldn't be a "3rd state". My personal opinion is that there were various pastoralist nomadic groups who came and went in the early dynastic era and were seen as threats. But they weren't part of any unified state in the region such as that of Ta-Seti which had become integrated into the dynastic state itself. However, these facts are kind of distorted within the framework of A-Group and C-Group as some kind of ethnic, political or cultural continuity when it isn't. There is no "B-Group" precisely because the populations of the predynastic in the region moved North and elsewhere due to changes in the environment. And those later groups were likely not related to those who had been there before.
The point was that getting to the proper understanding of the relationship between these early groups in Upper Egypt prior to Unification is kind of problematic. Part of that is due to the historical use of the term "Nubia" tied to the attempt to separate "Egypt" and "Nubia" in prehistory. The other problem is that most of the region between the first and second cataract is underwater. So there is no way to find more of the artifacts related to Qustul and other history in the region between the 4th millenium and 3rd Millenium BC.
In looking at some info related to this, I came across a few interesting tidbits, mostly on the cosmology and mythology side than archaeology side.
quote: The Turin king-list is not a royal canon, but rather a list of about 300 kings regardless of favour or character written on a 2nd hand papyrus, probably as scribal practice. Written in hieratic on the back of a tax list and dated to the reign of Ramses II (13th century BCE), it was probably based on tradition and copied from earlier copies that were not without errors.
It is very fragmentary due to severe damage while travelling on a donkey in the 1800s. A lot of names are lost, what remains are mostly damaged. This papyrus is a list of Egyptian kings from the mythological period to historical dynasties up to the New Kingdom. They are loosely divided into 3 groups; god-kings, akhu spirits and historical kings.
1) Gods and demi-gods – Ptah, Geb, Osiris, Seth, Horus, Thoth, Maat, Amen are listed (in Column I-2 more than half the names are lost). Horus is named 3 times, Seth twice, and a king called Shemsu at line 2.4.
2) Spirits /akhu kings (Columns 2-3.9) are all damaged. Two Shemsu Heru are named on line 3.8 and 3.9, but the ‘akh’ is missing and assumed to be there. The names are damaged and the year numbers may be incomplete; 3.8 (reign 3420? years) & 3.9 (3200? years). Again, these akhu are assumed to be Predynastic kings, but not to be historically accurate, rather a part of mythological time.
3) The historical section of the list begins with Menes, the first king of the 1st Dynasty. The historical king names do not match Manetho particularly well, he has errors, this has errors. But the groups of early divine kings match the later text in a general way.
Therefore, from what little info is supplied there in the Ramesside period, the kings who we know predated Menes all may have been the akhu kings or the models for the Shemsu Heru – that is the Dynasty 0/Naqada III kings like Scorpion, Crocodile, Iry-Hor, Ka and Narmer (who may be Menes).
However, the Turin list does not match any of the early kings on the Palermo Stone, nor the versions of Manetho, and it has errors for later kings.
So in fact there is no complete or absolutely accurate king-list from pharaonic Egypt.
These followers of Horus or mythic kings are still associated with the 2 regions of upper and lower KMT.
Another interesting piece of info is from the Edfu Texts as supposedly translated by Brian Brown in the 1920s but I have not seen any other sources reflecting these translations. https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/woe/woe03.htm
quote: We have already said that the native African element in upper Egypt was reinforced continually from the south, and we may assume that the process of reinforcement usually went on peacefully, and that the Egyptians in upper Egypt assimilated their newly-arrived kinsmen from the south without difficulty. This, however, was fated not to go on indefinitely, for on one occasion at least, probably a century or two before the dynastic period began, a host of men from the south or southeast swept down upon Egypt. This invasion in many respects seems to have been similar to that which took place under Piânkhi, the king of Nubia, whose capital was at Napt, or Napata, about 720 B.C.; but whilst Piânkhi returned to Nubia, the southern folk and their leaders who invaded Egypt towards the close of the pre-dynastic period did not do so. If we take into account the effect of this pre-dynastic invasion upon the civilization of Egypt we must assume that the invaders were more highly civilized than the people they conquered. And if we assume this we must further assume that the invaders came from the country now called Abyssinia and the lands to the south of it. Their route was the old trade route known today as the "Blue Nile caravan route," which has been chosen from time immemorial by the captains of caravans, because it makes it unnecessary to traverse the first four cataracts. Among the invaders who came by this route were natives of the Eastern Desert, the remote ancestors of the Blemmyes and the modern Hadenduwa and cognate tribes, and Semites, who had originally crossed the Red Sea from Asia to Africa. We have no distinct record of this invasion, still less have we any details of it, and we have no knowledge of the causes that led up to it; but in an inscription of the Ptolemaic period cut on the walls of the temple of Edfû in upper Egypt, we certainly have a legendary account of it. In this inscription the victorious leader is accompanied by men who are called "Mesniu," or "Blacksmiths," who came from the west of the Nile, i.e., from a country to the south of Egypt, and not from a country to the southeast. This view agrees quite well with what is known of the dynastic period, for the Pharaohs often had to fight hordes of enemies from countries so far south as the White Nile and the Gazelle and Jûr Rivers, and their descendants were probably to be found in the Nobadae, who terrified the Romans, and the "Baggârah" who fought under the Mahdi in our own times. There may have been a conquest of Egypt by the peoples to the west of Egypt at one time, and another by the peoples to the east at another time, or the enemies of Egypt on both banks of the White and Blue Niles may have invaded the country together. In any case the purport of the inscription, the contents of which we will now describe, is to show that the king of the south and his descendants first conquered upper Egypt and then lower Egypt.
The Edfu text sets forth that Râ-Harmakhis was king of Ta-sti, the "Land of the Bow," i.e., the country of all the peoples who fought with bows and arrows, or the eastern Sûdân. In the 363d year of his reign he dispatched a force into Egypt, and overcoming all opposition, this god established himself and his followers at Edfû. Having discovered that the enemy had collected in force to the southeast of Thebes, Horus and his followers, or the blacksmiths, armed with spears and chains, set out and joined battle with them, and utterly defeated them at a place called Tchetmet. For the first time probably the natives armed with weapons made of flint found themselves in mortal combat with foreign enemies armed with metal weapons; their defeat was unavoidable. Soon after this battle the natives again collected in force to the northeast of Denderah, about fifty miles north of Thebes, where they were attacked and again defeated by Horus. Another battle took place a little later on at Heben, about one hundred and fifty miles south of Memphis, and Horus cut up many of his defeated foes and offered them to the gods. Horus then pursued the enemy into the Delta, and wherever he did battle with them he defeated them. In one place the arch-rebel Set appeared with his followers and fought against Horus and his "blacksmiths," but Horus drove his spear into Set's neck, fettered his limbs with his chain, and then cut off his head, and the heads of all his followers.
The gist here being that a third land of Ta Seti existed in the predynastic but merged into the system of the 2 lands.
All of these only mention the 2 lands primarily, of upper and lower KMT, with only the Edfu texts speaking of Ta Seti as the origin of Horus Kingship as a potential 3rd entity which was integrated into the upper kingdom.
Unfortunately I have not seen any modern translations of the Edfu texts, even though they cover the temple and were created in the Ptolemaic era. But the gist I get from them is that Ra as the "first king" of the Nile, sails from the South and slays his enemies and begins unifying the land. It is during this mythic battle that the nomes are established, places of worship and this extends all the way to the delta. As you know this is kind of supported by the fact that the nomes are numbered south to north, starting with Ta Seti. So this is basically a mythical retelling of how the kingdom was established. But still even here it is two lands.
From "Religion of the Ancient Egyptians" Alfred Widemann 1897 (note, Ta Seti here is translated as "Nubia")
posted
@Djehuti according to Doug I'm thinking even "Kemet" implies what in his view is a false separation of Nile Valley Civilization So how far back does this term "Kemet" go?
I don't see how this term "Kemet" can fit what Doug is saying unless he means for "KMT" also to include so called "Nubia"
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I think I'll let Doug clarify for himself since you have penchant to distort what others say. The name Kmt is used for the united nation comprised of both Ta Mehu (Lower Egypt) and Ta Shemau (Upper Egypt).
Kmmt
As to the first known usage of this name, that's a good question. I assume it was used immediately after unification of the country. Ironically the root word km means black and thus the name of their nation Kmmt is something like 'Blacks' in the collective sense with the feminine 't' suffix used for unified plurality or collective. The name for Egyptians is Kmmw or Kemmemu. Ironic that they essentially called themselves 'black' but not their Nubian neighbors to the south. But back to my point, the A-Group nomes of Ta-Seti nwt and Wetjes Hor were assimilated into Ta Shemau prior to the unification of Ta Shemau and Ta Mehu i.e. the creation of Kmmt.
That said, Doug brings up an excellent point with the myth he cites. I've always believed that within mythologies there lies history of some sort.
In regards to Horus worship, due to Plutarch and other Greco-Roman authors, people often think of Heru sa Asat (Horus son of Isis). Many forget that the latter is the Younger Horus and that there is an Elder Horus-- Heru Wr who is more ancient and said to be a son of Re the sun god and thus uncle of Horus the Younger. The origins of Her Ur is none other than the 2nd Nome of Wetjes Hor which literally means 'Seat of Horus' whose capital city was Behedet or modern Edfu.
https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/heruur/ Heru-ur (Hrw Wr, Har-wer, Haroeris, Horus the Elder) was one of the oldest gods of Ancient Egypt. He was a sky god, whose face was visualised as the face of the sun. As a result his name (“Heru”) was sometimes translated as “face”, rather than “distant one”, and was sometimes modified to “Herut” (“sky”). Horus absorbed a number of local gods including Nekheny the Nekhenite (a hawk god) and Wer (a god of light known as “the great one” whose eyes were the sun and moon) to become the patron of Nekhen (Heirakonpolis) and later the patron god of the pharaohs. Nekhen was a powerful city in the pre-dynastic period, and the early capital of Upper Egypt. By the Old Kingdom he was simply referred to as Horus, and had become the first national god and the patron of the Pharaoh... It has been suggested that Horus actually originated in Upper Egypt (as Horus Behedet in Behedet) and that his cult spread north with the unification of the country under Narmer or Hor Aha. He was worshipped in the composite temple of Kom Ombo with Sobek (who was in turn associated with Set).
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The gist here being that a third land of Ta Seti existed in the predynastic but merged into the system of the 2 lands.
Maria Gatto points out that A-Group culture i.e. Seti nwt and Wetjes Hor were assimilated into Upper Egypt first before the latter conquered Lower Egypt.
All of these only mention the 2 lands primarily, of upper and lower KMT, with only the Edfu texts speaking of Ta Seti as the origin of Horus Kingship as a potential 3rd entity which was integrated into the upper kingdom.
Are we talking about Ta Seti the sepat or Ta Seti the foreign kingdom?
quote:Unfortunately I have not seen any modern translations of the Edfu texts, even though they cover the temple and were created in the Ptolemaic era. But the gist I get from them is that Ra as the "first king" of the Nile, sails from the South and slays his enemies and begins unifying the land. It is during this mythic battle that the nomes are established, places of worship and this extends all the way to the delta. As you know this is kind of supported by the fact that the nomes are numbered south to north, starting with Ta Seti. So this is basically a mythical retelling of how the kingdom was established. But still even here it is two lands.
From "Religion of the Ancient Egyptians" Alfred Widemann 1897 (note, Ta Seti here is translated as "Nubia")[
The above passage seems to imply that IF the original name of Ta Seti was used, it was khast and NOT the 1st nome since they are clearly described as enemies. In fact the Egyptian term for conspirators-- Uaua seems to be a striking resemblance to the name of C-Group which is Wawat!
Yes, Edfu or its ancient name Behedet was an early cult center of Hor Ur, and Behedet was the name of the winged sun disc adopted by all Egyptian kings throughout the dynastic period as symbol of heavenly authority.
Hence the epithet Hor-Behedeti.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All of these only mention the 2 lands primarily, of upper and lower KMT, with only the Edfu texts speaking of Ta Seti as the origin of Horus Kingship as a potential 3rd entity which was integrated into the upper kingdom.
Are we talking about Ta Seti the sepat or Ta Seti the foreign kingdom?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: From "Religion of the Ancient Egyptians" Alfred Widemann 1897 (note, Ta Seti here is translated as "Nubia")
The above passage seems to imply that IF the original name of Ta Seti was used, it was khast and NOT the 1st nome since they are clearly described as enemies. In fact the Egyptian term for conspirators-- Uaua seems to be a striking resemblance to the name of C-Group which is Wawat!
I was thinking the same thing and the conclusion I came to is you have to examine the original texts. The context would have to come from each text and what is being written. Part of the problem is the translation of Ta Seti as "nubia", which automatically implies "enemy lands". But I would argue that "Ta Seti" in the Edfu Texts are the first nome as in the "first state" of the country, meaning that kingship originated there and spread North. The story is literally a mythical retelling of how each nome and important place came to be in the cosmology of the country. That would not be an "enemy land" as implied by "Nubia". Wawat then becomes those territories further South who did not become part of this line of kingship. But again, to fully disentangle this you would literally have to find texts referring to Ta Seti as a separate kingdom to the South, not the first nome of the dynastic state. To my knowledge, most of the literal hieroglyphic references to Ta Seti in the dynastic era refer to the first nome, such as the Prophecy of Neferti. Also, I would be careful with associating Wawat with the C-Group, because if this myth refers to predynastic events, then the C-group doesn't cover that era. Another reason why I don't really follow that entire framework because it is flawed in many ways. Wawat could just be a reference to that region between the first and second cataract that we are discussing here. Making Ta-Seti something separate, as I mentioned. But again, going to the source hieroglyphs would be the only way to truly understand this properly.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This is why having the original Mdu Neter is important. Are you sure that the original name used was Ta Seti? Because usually Egyptologists translate 'Nubia' from the name Ta Nhsy. Again, the Egyptians are more precise with their words Ta Nhsy as the general name for the land beyond the 1st cataract, whereas Ta Seti Khast was the name of the proto-dynastic Kingdom of Lower Nhsy. The 1st nome of Ta Seti Nwt was already incorporated into Ta Shemau by then. Edfu was not part of Ta Seti Nwt but was its own nome of Wetjes Hor.
So following the tribal theory of sepati (nomes), there were two A-Group tribes in southern Shemau-- Wetjes Hor and Ta Seti (Nwt). Thus the latter could not be an enemy or 'conspirator' to Re (the national god or nation of Kmmt).
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ This is why having the original Mdu Neter is important. Are you sure that the original name used was Ta Seti? Because usually Egyptologists translate 'Nubia' from the name Ta Nhsy. Again, the Egyptians are more precise with their words Ta Nhsy as the general name for the land beyond the 1st cataract, whereas Ta Seti Khast was the name of the proto-dynastic Kingdom of Lower Nhsy. The 1st nome of Ta Seti Nwt was already incorporated into Ta Shemau by then. Edfu was not part of Ta Seti Nwt but was its own nome of Wetjes Hor.
So following the tribal theory of sepati (nomes), there were two A-Group tribes in southern Shemau-- Wetjes Hor and Ta Seti (Nwt). Thus the latter could not be an enemy or 'conspirator' to Re (the national god or nation of Kmmt).
I personally have never seen the term Ta Nehesy used in any text, versus Ta Seti. And my point is that Egyptology treats Ta Seti, Nubia, Wawat, Yam and Kush as synonyms. So some translators will just put Nubia in for all of them. But there is no doubt that the Ta Seti in the Edfu Texts is not referring to anything other than the first Nome. And often when you hear Egyptologists talk of Ta Seti they act as if this nome doesn't exist as part of the dynastic kingdom. That is my point. And as I said, most times when I have seen Ta Seti used in ancient text, they are talking to of the nome, not of any kind of foreign territory. And this is why I am against the way "Nubia" is used because it totally disregards that distinction. I have yet to see a text from the ancient times using Ta Seti exclusively as a reference to any foreign territory outside the dynastic kingdom. Not saying it doesn't exist, but that I haven't seen it.
And I have been calling out my disagreement with this concept of Nubia since I have been on this forum, mainly because it is an arbitrary construct that has no consistency in usage and often contradicts the reality on the ground.
On the same note, I am of the same opinion on the term Nehesy also, as they are very inconsistent on that as well....
quote: Archaeologists in Egypt have discovered several tombs and chapels dating back around 3,300 years in an ancient cemetery at the site of Saqqara.
The biggest tomb belonged to a man named "Panehsy" who was the "overseer of the temple of Amun," Lara Weiss, a curator of the Egyptian and Nubian collection at the Netherlands' National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden and author of the book "The Walking Dead at Saqqara" (De Gruyter 2022), who is one of the excavation leaders, told Live Science in an email.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: On the same note, I am of the same opinion on the term Nehesy also, as they are very inconsistent on that as well....
quote: Archaeologists in Egypt have discovered several tombs and chapels dating back around 3,300 years in an ancient cemetery at the site of Saqqara.
The biggest tomb belonged to a man named "Panehsy" who was the "overseer of the temple of Amun," Lara Weiss, a curator of the Egyptian and Nubian collection at the Netherlands' National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden and author of the book "The Walking Dead at Saqqara" (De Gruyter 2022), who is one of the excavation leaders, told Live Science in an email.
Do we know whether the "-nehesy" in that dude's name is etymologically related to the term Egyptians used for peoples further up the Nile? Sometimes words in a language might look similar without meaning the same thing.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I personally have never seen the term Ta Nehesy used in any text, versus Ta Seti...
And exactly which texts have you been reading??! Throughout dynastic history Ta Nehesy was the term used for the land to their south NOT Ta Seti! The latter was only used for the 1st sepat. Ta Seti khast was only recorded from predynastic to proto-dynastic times after it was utterly conquered and vanquished. All Egyptology has translated the word Ta Nehesy to the Roman label of 'Nubia' and its inhabitants-- Nehesu as 'Nubians'. Only the most racist Egyptologist James Breasted has translated Nhs as "negro" which even other Egyptologists scoff at. Again Ta Seti for much of dynastic history past the Archaic Period meant the 1st sepat hence the Prophecy of Neferti speaking of the rise of the 12th dynasty coming from a "Woman of Ta Seti". That meant a woman from the southernmost sepat NOT 'Nubia'.
quote:..And my point is that Egyptology treats Ta Seti, Nubia, Wawat, Yam and Kush as synonyms. So some translators will just put Nubia in for all of them.
That is patently FALSE! Egyptology has only translated Ta-Nehesy as "Nubia" which is a general region. The other names you list are of specific states or polities that are located in the said region!
Seriously Doug, I don't know what texts you've been reading or rather translations of those texts but the Mdu Neter has been made clear many times in this forum as to what the Egyptian word for 'Nubia' was for many years now including your time of membership here.
A perfect example would be of the usage of 'Nubian' would be from the tomb of Weni where it says this: Iri'n Hm=f mSa ni Dbaw aSaw m Sma'w mrw-qd=f xnti m Abw Mhwt m Mdn.it m Ta-Mhw m gswi prw Mrw-qd=sni m SDr m Xnw inbw Sdr m Nhsiw Irtjt, m Nhsiw Medja, m Nhsiw Iam m Nhsiw Wawat, m Nhsiw Kaaw, m Ta-Tmh
Translation: "His Majesty made an army of many tens of thousands, from all of Upper Egypt, south to Yebu, north to Medenit, from Lower Egypt, to “Two-sides-of-the-House” (the Delta)” from Sedjer to Khen-sediru from the Irtjet-Nubians, the Medja-Nubians, the Yam-Nubians, from the Uauat-Nubians, from the Kaau-Nubians, from Tjemeh-land."
All the polities and/or ethnicities listed have the appellative of Nehesiu/Nubian attached. What do they all have in common besides hailing from the same region? Notice "Ta-Seti" is not included because what used to be Ta-Seti xst is now Wawat!!
quote:But there is no doubt that the Ta Seti in the Edfu Texts is not referring to anything other than the first Nome.
Bruh, the second sentence of the text says, "Ra was in the land of Nubia with his warriors, but foes conspired (u'u) against him, and therefore to this day that country bears the name of Conspirators' Land (Ua'ua)."
Why do you insist that this was the 1st nome as opposed to Wawat?
quote:And often when you hear Egyptologists talk of Ta Seti they act as if this nome doesn't exist as part of the dynastic kingdom. That is my point.
What Egyptologists are you talking about?? Again the only Ta Seti that was never part of the dynastic kingdom was the one beyond the 1st cataract!
quote:And as I said, most times when I have seen Ta Seti used in ancient text, they are talking to of the nome, not of any kind of foreign territory. And this is why I am against the way "Nubia" is used because it totally disregards that distinction. I have yet to see a text from the ancient times using Ta Seti exclusively as a reference to any foreign territory outside the dynastic kingdom. Not saying it doesn't exist, but that I haven't seen it.
I have answered all of this above! Ta Seti was the 1st nome of Egypt, however there was another Ta Seti that was foreign up until the end of the Archaic Period when it was vanquished. What is so hard to understand??
quote:And I have been calling out my disagreement with this concept of Nubia since I have been on this forum, mainly because it is an arbitrary construct that has no consistency in usage and often contradicts the reality on the ground. https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005221
No! 'Nubia' is the exact translation of Ta Nehesi which was the land to the south of Egypt. Nothing more, nothing less. Ta Nehesi IS Nubia!
quote:On the same note, I am of the same opinion on the term Nehesy also, as they are very inconsistent on that as well.... Archaeologists in Egypt have discovered several tombs and chapels dating back around 3,300 years in an ancient cemetery at the site of Saqqara.
The name Panehesy means 'Man of Nehesy' and the source you cite describes him as a priest of Amun dating to the 18th dynasty. You know that there were many Nubians/Nehesy incorporated into the royal court in the 18th Dynasty right after Kush's defeat and annex into the Kmtawy Empire which is no wonder why the name 'Panehesy' dramatically increased in appearance in Egyptian records during the 18th dynasty. Similarly the name also increased in usage during the 25th Dynasty.
Seriously Doug, no offense but your reading comprehension seems to be limited to what you think as opposed to what is in the actual text.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It still is a legit question exactly what would have made someone "Nehesi" in Kemetian eyes. My hunch is that it basically referred to everyone to the south of Kemet, just as "Tjemeh" were people to the west and "Aamu" were people to the east. This system might have been based on the cardinal directions more than anything necessarily linking the groups within each of the designated categories.
posted
^ Though the Egyptians did use the four cardinal directions personified by 4 goddesses (Ayabet-East, Amentet-West, Mehutet-North, Resyet-South) they all don't seem to align etymologically to the peoples. Tamahu for example does not match with Amentet and neither does Aamu match with Ayabet even though there are various tribes along the Eastern Desert that are not Aamu. Nehesi does not match with Resyet. Again, the glyph nehes being a bird while the glyph res being a head since the head is positioned north especially in burials which makes the orientation the opposite of European worldview.
The speculation is that because nehes is a type of bird it may have a connection to the word for a people or ethne rhyt.
nehes
rhyt
What's interesting is that virtually all Egyptian religious texts agree that Egyptians (Reth/Kemmemu) are siblings of the Nehesu as both groups are born from Re or Horus but from different substances as Ibis has shown more recently here.
Look, I don't want to get into this issue of Nubia/Nehesi as there are already too many threads on it! This thread is about A-Group Culture being involved in the formation of Dynastic civilization.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were two cultures--Naqada and Qustul, but each culture was politically divided as sepati (tribes). So there was a process of political localization followed by expansion. Naqada had 20 tribes while Qustul had at least 4-- two just north of the 1st cataract and two south of the 1st cataract.
Going north, the two sepati north of the 1st cataract were Ta Khentit/Ta Seti based in Aswan and Wetjes Hor based in Efu. Both joined the Nekhen confederation which later came under Thinite hegemony i.e. unified Ta Shemau. Going south, the two south of the 1st cataract is Sayala and the Qustul proper just north of the 2nd cataract.
There seemed to be rivalry and conflict between Sayala and Qustul until the encroachment of Naqada forced them to come together but by then it was too late. Naqada or rather Kemet conquered the Qustul kingdom of Ta Seti and mass imported its inhabitants into Kemet as a policy of forced assimilation. I suspect that all these Setiu khast captives were settled in the territory of their kinsmen especially in Setiu Nwt.
Originally there was debate as to when the conquest of Ta Seti Khast took place with some suggesting it was during the predynastic sometime around Dynasty 0 while others say it took place during the Archaic Period that is the beginning of the Dynastic Era. Evidence supports the latter which is not surprising since such a large scale military campaign needs the manpower that a united kingdom can provide as this paper on the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock inscriptions show.
Apparently the 1st dynasty king and his troops after vanquishing the Qustul Kingdom fought his way as far south as just past the 2nd cataract in Gebel Sheikh Suleiman capturing or expelling what was left of the Qustul forces.
These enemies of Qustul i.e. Ta Seti Khast are no doubt the "conspirators" or "Uaua" in the myth that Doug cited. This reminds me, there was a paper that was published last year about the role of religion in the process of state formation in Nile Valley civilization. I haven't been able to find the full paper but here is the title: Holy War: Expansion of the Naqada Culture and State-Building in Egypt.
This is why the myth that Doug cites describes the god Ra on earth waging war against rebels and interestingly often times these rebels are in Ta Nehesi (Nubia). Since Ra is the national god of Kemet, the myth is an allegory of those rebels against the state of Kmt which was formed by the Naqadans.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And exactly which texts have you been reading??!
Throughout dynastic history Ta Nehesy was the term used for the land to their south NOT Ta Seti! The latter was only used for the 1st sepat. Ta Seti khast was only recorded from predynastic to proto-dynastic times after it was utterly conquered and vanquished. All Egyptology has translated the word Ta Nehesy to the Roman label of 'Nubia' and its inhabitants-- Nehesu as 'Nubians'. Only the most racist Egyptologist James Breasted has translated Nhs as "negro" which even other Egyptologists scoff at. Again Ta Seti for much of dynastic history past the Archaic Period meant the 1st sepat hence the Prophecy of Neferti speaking of the rise of the 12th dynasty coming from a "Woman of Ta Seti". That meant a woman from the southernmost sepat NOT 'Nubia'.
I am talking about original heiroglyphic texts not off hand references from web sites or articles. Again, the context for this statement was that you have to read the original hieroglyphs to get a proper understanding. And apparently that got past you and you insist on meaningless rhetoric. What actual texts from the ancient Nile use "Ta-Nehesy" and in what context? Again, the reason I say this is because the people translating the term are terribly inconsistent in many cases.
I can of course find general articles on google but that wasn't the point.
quote: Egyptian Names of Nubia
All of the lands south and southeast of Egypt (sometimes also including the northeast) the Egyptians called, Ta-netjer, "God's Land." Within this great region, the Egyptians located the different countries and people of Nubia. From the Old Kingdom onward, in addition to Ta-Seti, the Egyptians applied the name Ta- Nehesy as a general designation for Nubia (n.b., nehesy means, "nubian;" Panehesy, "the Nubian" becomes a common personal name, developing into the Biblical name, Phineas). At the same time, Egyptians gave the name Wawat specifically to Lower Nubia. This name derived from one of several Nubian chiefdoms which were located in this region during the late Old Kingdom. A generic designation of the desert nomads of Nubia was the term Iuntiu or Iuntiu-setiu , "Nubian tribesmen (lit. 'bowmen')." The names which the Egyptians used to refer to the various parts of Nubia and its different peoples usually changed depending upon the era and the particular tribal group in a given area.
This article above showing exactly the problem with the usage of the term "Nubia" because there is no evidence that the ancient Nile valley people looked at all the groups to the south as a single unified culture, society, political or ethnic entity. And as such, the distinctions between them get glossed over and distorted. Because technically Punt would also be called "nubia" then but they never say that.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That is patently FALSE! Egyptology has only translated Ta-Nehesy as "Nubia" which is a general region. The other names you list are of specific states or polities that are located in the said region!
Seriously Doug, I don't know what texts you've been reading or rather translations of those texts but the Mdu Neter has been made clear many times in this forum as to what the Egyptian word for 'Nubia' was for many years now including your time of membership here.
I literally just posted two versions of the same Edfu texts where one uses "Nubia" as a reference to Ta-Seti. And there are plenty of works from Egyptology where you can see this. You can see this also on the Oriental Institutes web site. And I posted a thread from 2007 showing the exact same discussion from many older members, including you pointing out the distortion within Egyptology about the term "Nubia". I know you aren't going to sit here and claim that Egyptology hasn't always used "Nubia" as a synonym for black African because it has and still continues to do so to this day.
quote: In addition to maintaining trade contacts with Egypt, A-Group rulers employed symbols that were used by Egyptian pharaohs of that time. Some Nubian seal impressions depict a bow above a rectangle (right), probably the earliest writing of Ta-Seti, “Land of the Bow,” an ancient Egyptian name for Nubia. The A-Group flourished until it was destroyed by pharaohs of Egypt’s First Dynasty around 3100 BC. Much of northern Nubia was not inhabited for centuries afterwards, at least partly because of Egyptian military action. There is evidence of some occupation during this time, however; a settlement at Buhen near the 2nd cataract, with Egyptian and Nubian pottery, may have been a base for trade or copper working during the Egyptian Old Kingdom (2686–2125 BC).
Nowhere in that statement above do they mention Ta-Seti as the 1st Nome of the unified dynastic kingdom and possibly the beginning of the dynastic state.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: A perfect example would be of the usage of 'Nubian' would be from the tomb of Weni where it says this: Iri'n Hm=f mSa ni Dbaw aSaw m Sma'w mrw-qd=f xnti m Abw Mhwt m Mdn.it m Ta-Mhw m gswi prw Mrw-qd=sni m SDr m Xnw inbw Sdr m Nhsiw Irtjt, m Nhsiw Medja, m Nhsiw Iam m Nhsiw Wawat, m Nhsiw Kaaw, m Ta-Tmh
Translation: "His Majesty made an army of many tens of thousands, from all of Upper Egypt, south to Yebu, north to Medenit, from Lower Egypt, to “Two-sides-of-the-House” (the Delta)” from Sedjer to Khen-sediru from the Irtjet-Nubians, the Medja-Nubians, the Yam-Nubians, from the Uauat-Nubians, from the Kaau-Nubians, from Tjemeh-land."
All the polities and/or ethnicities listed have the appellative of Nehesiu/Nubian attached. What do they all have in common besides hailing from the same region? Notice "Ta-Seti" is not included because what used to be Ta-Seti xst is now Wawat!!
Where is "Ta Nehesy" in this text because that is what the original discussion was about? I am perfectly aware that "Nehesy" was used in ancient texts, but not aware of "Ta Nehesy" ever being used. That is what I was specifically referring to and apparently unless you can provide the text, you haven't either. I can't believe you didn't understand the distinction, because "Nehesy" and "Ta-Nehesy" are two different things and have different meanings and we have discussed the potential meanings for "nehesy" many times, including how inconsistent they are with references to various individuals named "Nehesy". For example, the king Nehesy listed in the first intermediate period as a ruler in the delta. Earlier Egyptologists referred to him as a Asiatic while others more recently refer to him as from the South and others say he is from Kmt.
And I am not sure what the prefix "Nehesi" represents in this particular text? If it was a singular political entity or singular ethnic group why have the specific names appended to it? Indicating that they were not lumped together as a singular entity as implied by "Nubian" in modern usage. To this day, I don't think anybody has come up with a decisive answer to this question.
quote: The classic Middle Egyptian phase of the Egyptian language provides evidence for Egyptian attitudes to the inhabitants of lands immediately south of Egypt: there seem to have been two main words used, Nehesy (nHsy) for inhabitants of the river valley, and Medjay (mDAy) for a group or groups from the deserts east of the Nubian Nile Valley. This indicates the view from Egypt, as mediated through language: it is possible that it represents a simplifying generalisation for a more complex linguistic and ethnic map of Nubia.
And where is the source for this text from Weni's tomb and when was it published? Curious because I have never seen this before and if you look on google it says that the tomb was discovered and then lost in the 1800s and then rediscovered in the late 90s. So was this translation provided in the 1800s or more recently? That is important because it helps show the differences in translations for the same texts and the distortions. Which was my point in terms of trying to get to the bottom of these questions. But again, these terms have been used interchangeably within Egyptology for for "Nubian or black African" for a long time.
For example, this is how Breasted translated the exact same text, proving my point of why it is important to look at the source hieroglyphs.
quote: His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands; in the entire South, southward to Elephantine, and northward to Aphroditopolis; in the Northland on both sides entire in the [stronghold], and in the midst of the [strongholds], among the Irthet negroes, the Mazoi negroes, the Yam negroes, among the Wawat negroes, among the Kau negroes, and in the land of Temeh.
His majesty sent me at the head of his army while the counts, while the wearers of the royal seal, while the sole companions of the palace, while the nomarchs and commanders of strongholds belonging to the South and Northland; the companions, the caravan-conductors, the superior prophets belonging to the South and the Northland, the overseers of the crown-possessions, were (each) at the head of a troop of the South or the Northland, of the strongholds and cities which they commanded, and of the negroes of these countries. I was the one who made for them the plan while my office was (only) that of superior custodian of the domains of the Pharaoh of [.... .... ....] . Not one thereof [...] with his neighbor; not one thereof plundered [dough] (or) sandals from the wayfarer; not one thereof took bread from any city; not one thereof took any goat from any people. I despatched them from the Northern Isle, the Gate of Ihotep, the bend of Horus, Nibmat. While I was of this rank .... .... .... everything, I [inspected] the number of these troops, (although) never had any servant inspected.
quote:But there is no doubt that the Ta Seti in the Edfu Texts is not referring to anything other than the first Nome.
Bruh, the second sentence of the text says, "Ra was in the land of Nubia with his warriors, but foes conspired (u'u) against him, and therefore to this day that country bears the name of Conspirators' Land (Ua'ua)."
Why do you insist that this was the 1st nome as opposed to Wawat?
quote:And often when you hear Egyptologists talk of Ta Seti they act as if this nome doesn't exist as part of the dynastic kingdom. That is my point.
What Egyptologists are you talking about?? Again the only Ta Seti that was never part of the dynastic kingdom was the one beyond the 1st cataract
quote:And as I said, most times when I have seen Ta Seti used in ancient text, they are talking to of the nome, not of any kind of foreign territory. And this is why I am against the way "Nubia" is used because it totally disregards that distinction. I have yet to see a text from the ancient times using Ta Seti exclusively as a reference to any foreign territory outside the dynastic kingdom. Not saying it doesn't exist, but that I haven't seen it.
I have answered all of this above! Ta Seti was the 1st nome of Egypt, however there was another Ta Seti that was foreign up until the end of the Archaic Period when it was vanquished. What is so hard to understand??
DJ are you serious? Stick to the point and stop rambling. I provided two translations of the exact same Edfu texts, both from in or around the late 1800s or early 1900s. One translates Ta-Seti as Ta-Seti, indicating the first nome, the other translates it as "Nubian". So I am not insisting on anything other than what I said, which is using the actual hieroglyphs if YOU are serious about getting to the bottom of this instead of grandstanding on semantics.
It is almost like you are pretending Egyptology has not used these terms interchangeably which is easily provable by going to the various texts written over the last 100 years. You sitting here denying it is odd.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:And I have been calling out my disagreement with this concept of Nubia since I have been on this forum, mainly because it is an arbitrary construct that has no consistency in usage and often contradicts the reality on the ground. https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005221
No! 'Nubia' is the exact translation of Ta Nehesi which was the land to the south of Egypt. Nothing more, nothing less. Ta Nehesi IS Nubia!
quote:On the same note, I am of the same opinion on the term Nehesy also, as they are very inconsistent on that as well.... Archaeologists in Egypt have discovered several tombs and chapels dating back around 3,300 years in an ancient cemetery at the site of Saqqara.
The name Panehesy means 'Man of Nehesy' and the source you cite describes him as a priest of Amun dating to the 18th dynasty. You know that there were many Nubians/Nehesy incorporated into the royal court in the 18th Dynasty right after Kush's defeat and annex into the Kmtawy Empire which is no wonder why the name 'Panehesy' dramatically increased in appearance in Egyptian records during the 18th dynasty. Similarly the name also increased in usage during the 25th Dynasty.
Seriously Doug, no offense but your reading comprehension seems to be limited to what you think as opposed to what is in the actual text.
Nah dude. I think you just are too full of yourself and don't want to listen as opposed to pretending to know everything. Again, I wasn't disagreeing with you really, but you are stuck on getting into a battle with me over god knows what and I am not into that. Its pointless. Save that for someone else. Like I said, if YOU or anybody else really wants to understand this you would have to look at the original hieroglyphs across various texts and cannot trust the translations as always being consistent. I stand by that as it is easily shown how inconsistent these various translations can be on the concept of so-called "Nubia". Your protestations and objections are irrelevant to that fact.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Doug, I already made it clear that the word typically translated as 'Nubia' is Ta Nehesy and 'Nubian' Nehesu. The example you gave of Ta Seti being translated as Nubia refers to Ta Seti khast the rival kingdom to Kmt NOT the 1st nome!
I'm not going to argue about this issue. If you wish to do so, I suggest you do so in lioness's thread here or the dozen other threads with the same topic.
In the meantime I wish to discuss A-Group's role in the Kmt's political and cultural development.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Doug, I already made it clear that the word typically translated as 'Nubia' is Ta Nehesy and 'Nubian' Nehesu. The example you gave of Ta Seti being translated as Nubia refers to Ta Seti khast the rival kingdom to Kmt NOT the 1st nome!
I'm not going to argue about this issue. If you wish to do so, I suggest you do so in lioness's thread here or the dozen other threads with the same topic.
In the meantime I wish to discuss A-Group's role in the Kmt's political and cultural development.
Again, since you are determined to ignore the point, ANYBODY who wants to properly understand this has to look at the source texts and hieroglyphs. And most of those texts and translations are not written by you which are very inconsistent and all over the place. No offense, but this isn't about taking your word for it or anybody else's word for it. That is the root of the issue, people running around saying "this is this" and not looking at the original source texts.
There are two texts you cited in this discussion with me and already you are using them interchangeably and not being specific. The Edfu texts refer to Ta-Seti as the first Nome but one writer translates it as "Nubia" the other does not. And the Weni inscription does not use Ta Seti at all. Two different texts, two different contexts, with the Weni inscription being provided by you. But even there, the word "nehesy" is translated as "negroes" by one author and the other does not. And the Weni inscription does not show "Nehesi" as a single political, ethnic, or cultural entity as implied by the term "Nubia", not to mention the Medjay are listed separately from Nehesy in other texts but Egyptology calls them all "Nubians". But you refuse to address these specific points and just run right past that even though that is the point of the thread. Not to mention you still have not shown me an example of "Ta-Nehesy" which you claim was used in the ancient texts for "Nubia", which is why you provided the Weni inscription. So in my book you really aren't clarifying anything at all rather than telling people to take your word for it.
Like I said, there is no consistent usage of the term "Nubia" over the last 100 years in Egyptology. And therefore, what you are trying to elaborate is the reality of the situation on the ground precisely because of that. Otherwise, why would you or anyone else need to create threads explaining this if it was already explained in all the books about so-called "Nubia", Kemet and the predynastic by Egyptology.
The thread is a discussion referring to the realrapgod web page on Nehesy. And in it, the only heiroglyphs for "Ta Nehesy" come from the Kushite period. It seems to be a reference to the "land of the Nehesy" between the 1st and 2nd cataract by the more Southern Kushites. And the author of this page is actually rejecting the idea of "nubia" as used by Egyptology, further reinforcing my point that the usage of the term is all over the place. Either way, outside of these Kushite texts, I am not aware of Ta Nehesi as a common phrase in earlier eras, as opposed to just "nehesy" as indicated in the Inscription of Weni.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Breasted's racialized mislabeling is a non-issue. Of course Weni does not show 'Nehesi' as single polity or ethnic group because the term applied to general inhabitants of a region that region being Ta Nehesi. The Edfu text you cited described Ta-Seti khast NOT the first nome, since the it clearly stated that region was from thence called Uaua that is Wawat which is in Lower Nubia.
Thus this tag found in Abydos..
clearly describes the defeat of the rival kingdom of Ta-Seti in Ta-Nehesi/Nubia NOT the 1st sepat which was part of the united kingdom of Kemet!
Look, clearly there is a problem with assessment and comprehension that I can't help with.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Breasted's racialized mislabeling is a non-issue. Of course Weni does not show 'Nehesi' as single polity or ethnic group because the term applied to general inhabitants of a region that region being Ta Nehesi. The Edfu text you cited described Ta-Seti khast NOT the first nome, since the it clearly stated that region was from thence called Uaua that is Wawat which is in Lower Nubia.
Thus this tag found in Abydos..
clearly describes the defeat of the rival kingdom of Ta-Seti in Ta-Nehesi/Nubia NOT the 1st sepat which was part of the united kingdom of Kemet!
Look, clearly there is a problem with assessment and comprehension that I can't help with.
DJ, you have written and published no translations of MDU NTR, so what you think about Breasted doesn't count. He represents those early Egyptologists who treated "Nubia", "Ta-Seti" and "Negroes" as synonyms for Black Africa. This is a historical fact and part of the reason for the distortions around the term "Ta-Seti" in translation. And this appears to be the problem here. So of course he counts when it comes to the translations of MDU NTR and how they vary. I don't know why it is about wanting to pick a battle with me over this but you are absolutely not respecting the topic of your own thread with this obsession over me and what I have said. And I wasn't really disagreeing with you.
The Edfu Texts are talking about the founding of the dynastic kingdom in a mythical text. THINK about what you just said. If Ta-Seti in the Edfu texts was so-called "Nubia" then this means that the texts are outright saying that Kingship originated in "Ta-Seti" as in "Nubia". That would be the ultimate win for African scholarship in the Nile wouldn't it? I will post the reference again to make it clear what we are talking about since this is the crux of the very thread, distinguishing between between "polity" and "ethnicity". And it also gets to my point why you need to actually look at the source texts in order to put these things into proper context.
quote: The Edfu text sets forth that Râ-Harmakhis was king of Ta-sti, the "Land of the Bow," i.e., the country of all the peoples who fought with bows and arrows, or the eastern Sûdân. In the 363d year of his reign he dispatched a force into Egypt, and overcoming all opposition, this god established himself and his followers at Edfû. Having discovered that the enemy had collected in force to the southeast of Thebes, Horus and his followers, or the blacksmiths, armed with spears and chains, set out and joined battle with them, and utterly defeated them at a place called Tchetmet. For the first time probably the natives armed with weapons made of flint found themselves in mortal combat with foreign enemies armed with metal weapons; their defeat was unavoidable. Soon after this battle the natives again collected in force to the northeast of Denderah, about fifty miles north of Thebes, where they were attacked and again defeated by Horus. Another battle took place a little later on at Heben, about one hundred and fifty miles south of Memphis, and Horus cut up many of his defeated foes and offered them to the gods. Horus then pursued the enemy into the Delta, and wherever he did battle with them he defeated them. In one place the arch-rebel Set appeared with his followers and fought against Horus and his "blacksmiths," but Horus drove his spear into Set's neck, fettered his limbs with his chain, and then cut off his head, and the heads of all his followers.
So there are two options for this text. One is that Ra and kingship originated in Ta-Seti as the foreign kingdom of "Nubia" and moved North establishing key nomes and places of worship of Horus in the dynastic kingdom. The other is that Ra originated in the first nome and moved North establishing these places as part of the dynastic kingdom. Looking at the context of this text as a mythical retelling of the narrative of how the dynastic kingdom was founded, the only reading that makes sense is that Ta-Seti here is a reference to the first nome, not the so-called "nubian" kingdom Ta-Seti.
That does not mean I disagree that "Ta-Seti" the kingdom existed to the South of the Nile during the predynastic. That is absolutely NOT my point. My point here is that by the time of the unification, Ta-Seti had effectively been incorporated into the dynastic state and was no longer a separate kingdom. And therefore, when they are referring to this mythical legend of the beginnings of the dynastic state, they are most likely referring to the first nome as the representation of the ancient kingdom now formally identified with the first nome. Which agrees with my point that the separate kingdom was incorporated into the Kingdom as the founding element of the dynastic state itself. The fact that the people of Wawat are explicitly called out as enemies makes it clear that these people are not lumped together as "nubians" or "nehesy" with "Ta-Seti" the first nome.
Whether you agree with that or not is one thing, but this is not an issue of reading comprehension, as "Ta-Seti" is the first nome of the dynastic kingdom. The point is that you cannot make generalized statements about "ta-seti" and you have to look at each text in its appropriate context to understand whether the text is referring to the first nome or a the predynastic kingdom of Ta-Seti or even the "frontier lands" south of the first nome. I stand by that point and reject this ham fisted nonsense of trying to argue from a position of "take my word for it".
That image from Abydos is irrelevant because it is a different context from the Edfu texts. The edfu texts are a narrative showing how "ta seti" was effectively incorporated and a founding element of the dynastic state, not a subject vanquished "nubian" territory. You cannot make generalizations like that and understand the distinction between the two in all the various texts written over thousands of years in the Nile Valley. Nowhere did I say that "Ta-Seti" the kingdom did not exist, you simply keep ignoring my point to continue this line of discourse which has nothing to do with what I actually keep saying.
Like I said, I don't disagree with the broad strokes of what you are saying but the devil is in the details. The only way to really understanding the difference between "Ta-Seti" as the political entity within the dynastic state or "Ta-Seti" as a reference to the predynastic kingdom or some territory to the south of Aswan has to come from each text being understood in its proper context. It is absolutely ridiculous for anybody to claim that all references to Ta-Seti in ancient texts are references to the kingdom to the South of Kemet and never the first nome of the dynastic state.. And this is one of the reasons why I hate this "Nubia" nonsense, because by doing this, it takes "ta-seti" the first nome out of the dynastic state and puts it into foreign territory and totally ignores the fact that Ta Seti is the beginning of the dynastic state. Again, the point being that if you are going to argue, you have to provide the source hieroglyphs and you cannot just rely on translations.
Looking into the issue further apparently many of these translations of the Edfu texts refer to works by Eduoard Naville and others who also provided the hieroglyphs but I can't find those works online.
quote: THE text of this legend is cut in hieroglyphics on the walls of the temple of Edfu in Upper Egypt, and certain portions of it are illustrated by large bas-reliefs. Both text and reliefs were published by Professor Naville in his volume entitled Mythe d'Horus, fol., plates 12-19, Geneva, 1870. A German translation by Brugsch appeared in the Ahandlungen der Göttinger Akademie, Band xiv., pp. 173-236, and another by Wiedemann in his Die Religion, p. 38 ff. (see the English translation p. 69 ff.). The legend, in the form in which it is here given, dates from the Ptolemaic Period, but the matter which it contains is far older,
And you are just proving my point here with the Edfu texts. I don't have the hieroglyphs, but just looking at the context, there is no doubt to me that this is a reference to "Ta Seti" the political entity within of the dynastic state and not a foreign entity. Same as the prophecy of Neferti is not referring to a foreign ethnicity either. Meaning these are not references to "Nubia"..... And the only reason I am saying this here is because these bad translations or misunderstandings about the history of the region between Aswan and the 2nd cataract seem to be the basis of this idea of a 3rd land. There were only two and this is found in numerous texts throughout the dynastic era as "tawy".
If there was a "third land" it would have been in the 18th dynasty when they annexed Kush, far to the south and established the kings son of Kush.
I have stated my disagreement with this concept of "nubia" many times and again, your diatribes about whatever it is you are trying to nit pick me about aren't changing that. And that is absolutely central to this topic. Because if Ta Seti conquered the upper nile as a result of the Kingdom moving north due to environmental and other issues, then of course that would not be a third state. But it does explain why the first nome is also called "Ta Seti" because otherwise, why name the first nome after a defeated kingdom to the south? Determining which of these things is more historically valid depends very much on how people view the prehistory of the upper nile and their ideas on so-called "Nubia". Because in fact the only "Nubia" meaning golden land/town was Nubt which is called "Naqada" by Egyptologists. We know there were conflicts in the region and there is no denying that. But do those conflicts represent a conquest of elements North of Aswan over those to the South of Aswan or vice versa? And in neither case would that represent a third state.
And in searching for this store Horus the Behdedite, there are numerous references to how it forms a key part in the evolution of "tawy" or the two lands as a fundamental principle of the state governed by the deity.
quote: Gardiner and other scholars of his era hotly debated the origin of Horus the Behdetite. Most scholars now believe that the question as to whether the Behdetite was originally from Upper or Lower Egypt is unanswerable or, even, irrelevant. The question may not be answerable, however Horus the Behdetite's identification with one or both of the parts of Egypt appears to be an important part of his identity. These associations with Upper and Lower Egypt are noted in several places in the dissertation. The final conclusion is that the Behdetite is identified with both parts of the country at a very early date and can appear associated with either Upper or Lower Egypt depending on the context. This double identification is likely inherent in the form of the winged sun disk. The identification with the Two Lands also influences the Behdetite's identification with the king. Identification of the god and king is also noted in several places and interpreted in Chapter 8. The god first appears in the rituals of the Sed festival and is likely involved with the enthronement of the king. His name "Behdetite" connects him with the place of the throne. In a scene from the Middle Kingdom he appears as the winged sun disk above the king, who sits on the double-throne of the Sed festival, while the Behdetite receives the breathe of life from the gods. The scene indicates that the king on the double-throne is acting in the capacity of the Behdetite. As Horus there is already a certain identity of the king with the Behdetite but it is the fact that the Behdetite is the solar Horus that leads to a triple identification of Horus the Behdetite, the king and Re in royal names. The key to understanding this triple identification is the Royal Ka.
The full dissertation is worth a read related to this topic.
Also note many of those predynastic inscriptions you posted feature falcons as symbols of what eventually referred to Horus as well. Which then relates back to the mythic narrative of Horus at Edfu.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't have to publish anything to know that Breasted's translation is racist sh*t. Even his own peers who also subscribed to the same racial notions of that day thought his racial translation to be laughable since there is no indication of race to the glyph nhs. I already said my piece I told you if want to argue the 'Nubian' label do so in the other dozen or so threads about it!
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Hey DJ, your PM box is full again.
Sorry about that. I made some space.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And contrary to what Djehuti may think, I am not totally against his line of reasoning. However, what I am saying is that this modern concept of "Nubia" makes understanding these things problematic. Because they are mostly based on an assumption that scholars are using a consistent system of translation for ancient texts. But any examination of those texts and their actual contexts show clearly that this is not the case. Meaning that a lot of times modern scholars are forcing the facts to fit into their "Egypt vs Nubia" dichotomy where as the facts themselves don't support that notion. And all of that dichotomy rests squarely upon separating the Lower Nile from Africa with African people and culture starting at Aswan.
I found a recent piece of scholarship mentioning some of these issues and even here you can see a wide inconsistency in translation and desire to promote distorted history. They even go as far to claim that the Nehesy from the Delta were Asiatics..... As if the Nile Valley is somehow a barrier to populations moving North. Not withstanding the fact that Manfred Bietak found substantial evidence of a Southern presence at Avaris while trying to find evidence for the "hyksos" in the delta. It is completely ridiculous yet this is precisely what is going on here.
And more crucially this also applies to the historical narrative related to the rise of kingship in the Nile Valley. As many African scholars have pointed out, Ta Seti is the origin of Kingship on the Nile. But Egyptology has decided that Kingship originated in "Egypt", while Ta-Seti was simply a conquered population. However, the Edfu texts and other texts from the Nile say just the opposite.
Here is the text and not ironically, it seems to be more interested in "revising" the concept of "Nubia" precisely because of the evidence of how significant and important various Southern groups were in the dynastic era. And as such this appears to be more about reassigning those various elements claimed as "Nubian", such as "Nehesy", "Medjay" and "Ta-Seti" to Levantine and even Arab groups. Which just shows how all of this is based on an agenda more than anything else.
quote: Territorial and ethnic designations are seldom clearly defined in ancient sources. Hence modern scholars resort to conventional translations. However, insidiously, they foster long-lasting theories and uncritical data that can seriously flaw historical construing. Too often, history anticipates and justifies geography, whereas a correct approach requires the opposite. Where did events happen is the first question to elucidate, so as to grasp their basic context and to give us a chance to understand what triggered them. Geography is the 'open sesame' to history. Herein are stressed pit-falls resulting from amalgamating translations of ‘Nubia’ and ‘Nubians’ for places and people that are not necessarily so and that have fostered circular reasoning hampering our understanding.
At the Warsaw Conference, Claude Rilly defined the area covered by and the history of the terms ‘Nubia’ and ‘Nubians’. They refer to Middle Nile Valley populations called Noba by Greeks and Meroites, possibly derived from Egyptian nbw, ‘gold’, the name of Pnubs/ed-Dakka (Rilly 2008, 211-223). Places and groups named Ta-Sety, Nehesy, Medja/Medjay and Maga are systematically dubbed Nubian ones. Yet, nothing substantiates that they did belong to Middle Nile Valley populations. These groups often also appear elsewhere, far from Nubia in the Delta and Sinai. Interpretation of context can seriously be distorted if they are systematically relegated to far south. That Nubia has been largely investigated should not stimulate the idea that all documented provincial events occurred south of Aswan, each time supposed southern groups appear in sources. ‘South lands’ begin south of Lower Egypt and conscript labour is essentially mobile (Bakir 1952, 2-9, 72-73; Quaegebeur 1995, 259-270).
It is taken for granted that TA-sty, the ‘Land of the bow’, necessarily labels lands south of the First Cataract. In fact, Ta-Sety referred originally, stricto sensu , to the first nome of Upper Egypt between two natural barriers, Elephantine and Gebel Silsileh, the first being its capital. From the Middle Kingdom onwards, the name came to span the whole of Upper Egypt and Nubia within a loose and complex notion depending on the determinative xAs(w)t , foreign country or spAt , nome of agricultural land (Gardiner 1947 II, 2; Helck 1977, 385-386; Zaki 2009, 309-319). It seems that Ta-sty underwent semantic extensions but this was not exclusively southwards. At el-Kanais, the Medjay chieftain Iuny, claims viceroyalty over Kush (K RI I 303, 15-304, 3; RITA I 247; RITA?C I 200-201). However, on his Abydos stela, he also claims viceroyalty over Ta-Sety ( sA nsw m TA-sty) (K RI III 68, 9, RITA III 47, 33). So does the Viceroy Huy II ( sA nsw r Hry m TA-sty) who enjoyed the office of Overseer of the southern banks, rsy idb , of TA-sty ( K RI III 79, 11 & 13; RITA III 55, Michaux-Colombot 2010a, 180-182). The Ramesside administrative unit TA-sty could still be distinguished from that of Kush. Iuny even mentions two Kush at el-Kanais. Unless a graphic error, it may refer to double offices and administrative units, Kush , south in Nubia proper and Ta-Sety in the east.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] And contrary to what Djehuti may think, I am not totally against his line of reasoning. However, what I am saying is that this modern concept of "Nubia" makes understanding these things problematic. Because they are mostly based on an assumption that scholars are using a consistent system of translation for ancient texts. But any examination of those texts and their actual contexts show clearly that this is not the case. Meaning that a lot of times modern scholars are forcing the facts to fit into their "Egypt vs Nubia" dichotomy where as the facts themselves don't support that notion. And all of that dichotomy rests squarely upon separating the Lower Nile from Africa with African people and culture starting at Aswan.
This all comes down to what is Kemet and what is not Kemet
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Lioness is correct. What is Kmt, and what is not Kmt?? As already explained Kmt was originally known as Sinwaj Tawy meaning the 'Two Lands' because it was originally two countries-- Ta Mehu (Lower Egypt) and Ta Shemau (Upper Egypt). My point is that the southernmost part of Ta Shemau was culturally part of Ta-Seti, the 3rd country just south of Ta-Shemau.
Again, this shows how cultural borders do not always follow political borders because the A-Group/Setiu people of the 2 southernmost nomes came under the hegemony of Nekhen/Hierakonpolis which was one of the 3 confederacies that lead to the formation of Ta-Shemau.
Once Shemau was united it conquered Mehu and unified into a single kingdom of Kmt, they made the 1st Cataract their southern border marker and the land to the south became the region Ta-Nhsy which is 'Nubia'. The problem is that because the rival kingdom Ta-Seti originally lay in Ta-Nhsy there was obviously confusion between the rival kingdom of Ta-Sety Khast vs. the 1st nome Ta-Sety Niwt.
Egypt's unification was not only political but religious in nature since it is the story of Kmt's founding gods or rather the followers who represented them-- the proto-dynastic kings expanding their polities and assimilating rivals. Many of these wars are poeticized and metaphorized with the kings as their patron gods waging war against enemy gods who were enemy kings. Once Kmt was unified under the sun god Re and sky god Heru (Horus), they went south to vanquish their opponents of Ta-Sety Khast. Again, this is NOT Ta-Sety Niut which was already part of Shemau.
This is why in that poem that Doug cited, they translated Ta-Seti as 'Nubia' because that was the rival khast kingdom and NOT the 1st Nome. And once the Khastu Setiu were defeated, there were some who evaded capture and continued to conspire against Kmt. The Egyptian word for conspirators is 'uaua/wawa' hence Lower Nubia became known as Wawat!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This is why in that poem that Doug cited, they translated Ta-Seti as 'Nubia' because that was the rival khast kingdom and NOT the 1st Nome. And once the Khastu Setiu were defeated, there were some who evaded capture and continued to conspire against Kmt. The Egyptian word for conspirators is 'uaua/wawa' hence Lower Nubia became known as Wawat!
Again, the poem from Edfu shows Ta Seti as the origin of Kingship not vanquished. Therefore the first nome is the literal continuation of the ancient pre-dynastic kingdom. You keep missing the point completely. This idea of Ta Seti being conquered is based on very flimsy evidence to begin with. And they used the word "Nubian" because that is how the Egyptologists defined the archeaological cultures of the Nile Valley, which is based on race. That term was not used in the ancient Nile Valley and is irrelevant. Trying to separate Ta Seti the first nome from the historical Pre Dynastic kingdom Ta Seti from which it originated is the problem because obviously one is the basis of the other. And they wouldn't name such a place after "hated southern consipirators" because that makes no sense, so Ta Seti the first nome is not called Wawat because Ta Seti does not represent those conspirators. And they wouldn't name Ta Seti after a vanquished kingdom either and then claim Ta Seti as the origin of kingship to cause confusion between the two. Ta Seti represents the Plymouth rock of the Nile Valley and the beginning of the nation state and that is what the Edfu texts are saying. They are calling Ta Seti the dwelling place of the god symbolizing the birth place of Kingship. Literally and figuratively it is saying that Ta Seti is the birth place of kingship on the Nile. And that is tied to the predynastic kingdom of Ta-Seti. That point is totally separate from the fact that in the dynastic era they used names such as Ta Seti to refer to regions to the South of Aswan and other names such as Nehesy for Southern populations. Two totally and separate points all together. None of that changes the point that kingship on the Nile originated in these southern regions in the predynastic before those KMT even existed. And again most of this area is under Lake Nasser so we will never be able to find all the facts related to that predynastic history.
Now I get the point that we don't literally know of the name of the pre dynastic kingdom we now call "Ta Seti", otherwise called the "A-Group". We have no writing from them and therefore only the term originating in the dynastic era to those lands to the south. I get that and therefore, because the only names we have for these regions come from the dynastic, we have to assume the first nome and these regions are using the same name for a reason. I would assume that indicates that both are part of a continuation of history going back to the predynastic era as southern populations and cultures. So yes we know there were wars between the predynastic rulers and various cultures in the area, but that doesn't change the fact that Ta Seti is an extension culturally and physically of those southern peoples going back to the predynastic. And they full well understood this in naming the first nome the way they did AND in creating the Edfu texts the way they did. So when I am saying the predynastic kingdom of 'Ta Seti' I am only referring to the A-Group because we don't really know what they called themselves other than "Ta Seti". But the point remains the same. The point being that the Edfu texts reflect a southern origin of culture and kingship in Ta Seti, the southern lands. Meaning the dynastic kingdom did not arise as a separate people or culture (or "race") from these southern regions as indicated in the racist usage of Egypt vs Nubia from the 19th century Egyptologists. Even if politically these kingdoms and regions often were in conflict.
I don't even know why I have to explain this because after all these years on the forum you know this and as we have had this discussion multiple times with many users.
As for this "third land" it never existed formally as I can tell, but if you want to consider such a place did exist you would have to look at the different time periods and what was happening in the region politically. So in the Old Kingdom there wasn't much going on in the area so I doubt it had much significance. More activity arose in the Middle Kingdom with the building of the fortresses and that simply may have been part of the frontier zone. Then later in the New Kingdom these lands were formally made part of the Kingdom and at that point there many have been a separate distinct term but I am unaware of it. As far as I can tell it was only ever two lands and thats it. And areas annexed in foreign territories like in the Levant or further South on the Nile kept their original names.
Also, I think it is important here to go over the history of the "A-Group" and other "Nubian" related terms from 19th century Egyptology. George Reisner created this grouping system as part of a relative chronology of the Nile using the predynastic artifacts as a comparative starting point of chronology. All of it is based on racist assumptions that the dynastic "Egyptian" culture was always superior and the anterior to those of the South. And this pretty much lasted up until the Nubia Salvage project when many regions now under lake Nasser were excavated. And it was as result of these excavations that the chronology of the "A-Group" was revised as being older than the predynastic "Egyptian" culture....
Maria Gatto covers this in her recent work on the A-group:
The problem with the paper however is that it is loaded down with the baggage of trying to fit archaeology into this concept of "Nubia" which doesn't exist. As such she then tries to distinguish the "true A-Group" from the "Nubian Tradition". I mean literally this is what she is saying. Like what does that even mean? This is what you get when these people are so determined to impose apriori models of cultural evolution on African history.
quote: Concluding remarks
On the basis of the present updated knowledge of what is the A-Group, I would like here to discuss some concluding points: 1 The Early A-Group has to be seen as the northernmost variant of the Nubian tradition. Of course, it has some similarities with both the Terminal Abkan and the Middle and Terminal A-Group. However, differences between the Early A-Group and the southern counterparts are so numerous and consistent that it can be put it aside from the main cultural development trajectory, which in the Wadi Halfa reach and the Second Cataract area led to the emergence of the A-Group proper.
It is like saying that those traditions of the 1st and 2nd cataracts werent really "Nubian"...... And of course missing in this particular paper is a discussion of Nabta Playa and other sites from the Western Desert which are in the same general area.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the poem from Edfu shows Ta Seti as the origin of Kingship not vanquished. Therefore the first nome is the literal continuation of the ancient pre-dynastic kingdom. You keep missing the point completely. This idea of Ta Seti being conquered is based on very flimsy evidence to begin with. And they used the word "Nubian" because that is how the Egyptologists defined the archaeological cultures of the Nile Valley, which is based on race. That term was not used in the ancient Nile Valley and is irrelevant. Trying to separate Ta Seti the first nome from the historical Pre Dynastic kingdom Ta Seti from which it originated is the problem because obviously one is the basis of the other. And they wouldn't name such a place after "hated southern consipirators" because that makes no sense, so Ta Seti the first nome is not called Wawat because Ta Seti does not represent those conspirators. And they wouldn't name Ta Seti after a vanquished kingdom either and then claim Ta Seti as the origin of kingship to cause confusion between the two. Ta Seti represents the Plymouth rock of the Nile Valley and the beginning of the nation state and that is what the Edfu texts are saying. They are calling Ta Seti the dwelling place of the god symbolizing the birth place of Kingship. Literally and figuratively it is saying that Ta Seti is the birth place of kingship on the Nile. And that is tied to the predynastic kingdom of Ta-Seti. That point is totally separate from the fact that in the dynastic era they used names such as Ta Seti to refer to regions to the South of Aswan and other names such as Nehesy for Southern populations. Two totally and separate points all together. None of that changes the point that kingship on the Nile originated in these southern regions in the predynastic before those KMT even existed. And again most of this area is under Lake Nasser so we will never be able to find all the facts related to that predynastic history.
And yet again you are reading things that are not in the text! Where in the poem does it say Ta-Seti is the origin of kingship? It clearly says that Ra and his warriors were in the area and defeated the foes though some remain to conspire against him hence why that land is called 'Wawat' meaning 'Conspirators'. This is why the authors translated Ta-Seti to mean 'Nubia' because this WAS Nubia and NOT the First Nome. Your problem is that you don't have a full grasp of the labels being used or rather any grasp at all but continue to whine and complain about them. There is no confusion for folks who understand them.
quote:Now I get the point that we don't literally know of the name of the pre dynastic kingdom we now call "Ta Seti", otherwise called the "A-Group". We have no writing from them and therefore only the term originating in the dynastic era to those lands to the south. I get that and therefore, because the only names we have for these regions come from the dynastic, we have to assume the first nome and these regions are using the same name for a reason. I would assume that indicates that both are part of a continuation of history going back to the predynastic era as southern populations and cultures. So yes we know there were wars between the predynastic rulers and various cultures in the area, but that doesn't change the fact that Ta Seti is an extension culturally and physically of those southern peoples going back to the predynastic. And they full well understood this in naming the first nome the way they did AND in creating the Edfu texts the way they did. So when I am saying the predynastic kingdom of 'Ta Seti' I am only referring to the A-Group because we don't really know what they called themselves other than "Ta Seti". But the point remains the same. The point being that the Edfu texts reflect a southern origin of culture and kingship in Ta Seti, the southern lands. Meaning the dynastic kingdom did not arise as a separate people or culture (or "race") from these southern regions as indicated in the racist usage of Egypt vs Nubia from the 19th century Egyptologists. Even if politically these kingdoms and regions often were in conflict.
Again nowhere in the poem does say anything about the origins of kingship only that the king of gods Ra was waging war in the land that was later named Wawat. It makes no mention of the 1st nome.
quote:I don't even know why I have to explain this because after all these years on the forum you know this and as we have had this discussion multiple times with many users.
Your explanations are null and moot because they are rooted in your confusion.
quote:As for this "third land" it never existed formally as I can tell, but if you want to consider such a place did exist you would have to look at the different time periods and what was happening in the region politically. So in the Old Kingdom there wasn't much going on in the area so I doubt it had much significance. More activity arose in the Middle Kingdom with the building of the fortresses and that simply may have been part of the frontier zone. Then later in the New Kingdom these lands were formally made part of the Kingdom and at that point there many have been a separate distinct term but I am unaware of it. As far as I can tell it was only ever two lands and thats it. And areas annexed in foreign territories like in the Levant or further South on the Nile kept their original names.
The 3rd land WAS Ta-Seti which was politically divided as my explanation which is backed by evidence. Your claims are not!
quote:Also, I think it is important here to go over the history of the "A-Group" and other "Nubian" related terms from 19th century Egyptology. George Reisner created this grouping system as part of a relative chronology of the Nile using the predynastic artifacts as a comparative starting point of chronology. All of it is based on racist assumptions that the dynastic "Egyptian" culture was always superior and the anterior to those of the South. And this pretty much lasted up until the Nubia Salvage project when many regions now under lake Nasser were excavated. And it was as result of these excavations that the chronology of the "A-Group" was revised as being older than the predynastic "Egyptian" culture....
Maria Gatto covers this in her recent work on the A-group:
The problem with the paper however is that it is loaded down with the baggage of trying to fit archaeology into this concept of "Nubia" which doesn't exist. As such she then tries to distinguish the "true A-Group" from the "Nubian Tradition". I mean literally this is what she is saying. Like what does that even mean? This is what you get when these people are so determined to impose apriori models of cultural evolution on African history.
quote: Concluding remarks
On the basis of the present updated knowledge of what is the A-Group, I would like here to discuss some concluding points: 1 The Early A-Group has to be seen as the northernmost variant of the Nubian tradition. Of course, it has some similarities with both the Terminal Abkan and the Middle and Terminal A-Group. However, differences between the Early A-Group and the southern counterparts are so numerous and consistent that it can be put it aside from the main cultural development trajectory, which in the Wadi Halfa reach and the Second Cataract area led to the emergence of the A-Group proper.
It is like saying that those traditions of the 1st and 2nd cataracts werent really "Nubian"...... And of course missing in this particular paper is a discussion of Nabta Playa and other sites from the Western Desert which are in the same general area.
As explained before 'Nubia' DOES exist as a region. Nubia was the name the Romans called the region south of the 1st cataract which is what the Egyptians called Ta-Nehesy so to say Nubia doesn't exist is like saying Ta-Nehesy doesn't exist which apparently it did/does. Because Nubia was a geographical region, it was NOT a 'culture' as various cultures existed there and some of these cultures went north beyond the 1st Cataract.
So until you can distinguish geography from culture or from polity I'm afraid you will remain confused and befuddled. There are three concepts are different.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And yet again you are reading things that are not in the text! Where in the poem does it say Ta-Seti is the origin of kingship? It clearly says that Ra and his warriors were in the area and defeated the foes though some remain to conspire against him hence why that land is called 'Wawat' meaning 'Conspirators'. This is why the authors translated Ta-Seti to mean 'Nubia' because this WAS Nubia and NOT the First Nome. Your problem is that you don't have a full grasp of the labels being used or rather any grasp at all but continue to whine and complain about them. There is no confusion for folks who understand them.
DJ, seriously, read what I post and actually respond to that. I posted TWO translations of the Edfu texts. One LITERALLY says that Ra was the King of Ta Seti. The other translation uses the term "Nubia". Again, if you are going to keep harping on this then actually pay attention to the fact that these texts have different translations. I have said this multiple times as part of the confusion here and you keep skipping over it.
Again, one of the translations:
quote: The Edfu text sets forth that Râ-Harmakhis was king of Ta-sti, the "Land of the Bow," i.e., the country of all the peoples who fought with bows and arrows, or the eastern Sûdân. In the 363d year of his reign he dispatched a force into Egypt, and overcoming all opposition, this god established himself and his followers at Edfû. Having discovered that the enemy had collected in force to the southeast of Thebes, Horus and his followers, or the blacksmiths, armed with spears and chains, set out and joined battle with them, and utterly defeated them at a place called Tchetmet. For the first time probably the natives armed with weapons made of flint found themselves in mortal combat with foreign enemies armed with metal weapons; their defeat was unavoidable. Soon after this battle the natives again collected in force to the northeast of Denderah, about fifty miles north of Thebes, where they were attacked and again defeated by Horus. Another battle took place a little later on at Heben, about one hundred and fifty miles south of Memphis, and Horus cut up many of his defeated foes and offered them to the gods. Horus then pursued the enemy into the Delta, and wherever he did battle with them he defeated them. In one place the arch-rebel Set appeared with his followers and fought against Horus and his "blacksmiths," but Horus drove his spear into Set's neck, fettered his limbs with his chain, and then cut off his head, and the heads of all his followers
Originally posted here, showing that two different translations have two totally different translations and interpretations. One says that Ra was the king of Ta Seti and the other says Ra was in "Nubia" and Ta Seti isn't even present at all.
The crux of the issue being that the term "Nubia" was not used in the ancient texts and modern translators injecting the term into the texts can and will often cause confusion or change the interpretation.
And as I said before, it is odd that such an important text about the mythical origin of the nation does not have an up to date translation anywhere........
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again nowhere in the poem does say anything about the origins of kingship only that the king of gods Ra was waging war in the land that was later named Wawat. It makes no mention of the 1st nome.
I literally posted a translation and interpretation which says it does from the early 1900s. If you aren't going to read my posts then why bother replying?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Your explanations are null and moot because they are rooted in your confusion.
I wasn't confused but apparently you arent reading what I wrote and therefore, you aren't addressing a word I said. The facts above are posted plainly that the issue is how such a text like the Edfu text is translated. But I would argue that obviously Ta Seti would not be included in such a text about the mythical origins of all the nomes in the beginning of the nation if it wasn't part of the kingdom. Having Ra in Ta-Seti would have been a reference to the first nome as the beginning of the nation, not simply "Nubia". You claim it means "nubia" or "foreign territory", but I disagree completely in terms of what the narrative of the Edfu texts are about.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The 3rd land WAS Ta-Seti which was politically divided as my explanation which is backed by evidence. Your claims are not!
We know Ta-Seti existed, that does not mean that in the ancient times there was a word or reference to "three lands" similar to the word meaning "two lands". You have not shown at all that there was such a concept in any text other than speculating that Ta Seti could have been a third region of the country. Again, like I said before, if that was true, it would have happened during the 18th dynasty when they outright annexed the region into the nation. And as far as I know, there was never any change to the way the term Tawy or "two lands" was used in that period or later periods.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As explained before 'Nubia' DOES exist as a region. Nubia was the name the Romans called the region south of the 1st cataract which is what the Egyptians called Ta-Nehesy so to say Nubia doesn't exist is like saying Ta-Nehesy doesn't exist which apparently it did/does. Because Nubia was a geographical region, it was NOT a 'culture' as various cultures existed there and some of these cultures went north beyond the 1st Cataract. This is the point Dr. Aaron deSouza makes in his blog such in this article here: (De)Constructing Nubia: Why do we need to do this?
So until you can distinguish geography from culture or from polity I'm afraid you will remain confused and befuddled. There are three concepts are different.
Come on DJ. There was no term "Nubia" in ancient times going back to the early dynastic and predynastic. Period. There is no hand waving or arm waving around this. And these terms belie the fact that the Nile Valley part of a larger cultural complex stretching into prehistory involving various groups at various times from the Upper Nile and Sahara. Trying to separate one of these groups from the other when they are all related as "Africans" and part of the same cultural complex is the fundamental problem. The usage of the word "Nubia" for regions along the Nile today 5 to 10 thousand years later is irrelevant to that ancient historical chronology. Therefore, this is absolutely about making a distinction between modern cultures identified by modern geographical terms and ancient cultures using the same geographical terms.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on DJ. There was no term "Nubia" in ancient times going back to the early dynastic and predynastic. Period. There is no hand waving or arm waving around this. And these terms belie the fact that the Nile Valley part of a larger cultural complex stretching into prehistory involving various groups at various times from the Upper Nile and Sahara. Trying to separate one of these groups from the other when they are all related as "Africans" and part of the same cultural complex is the fundamental problem. The usage of the word "Nubia" for regions along the Nile today 5 to 10 thousand years later is irrelevant to that ancient historical chronology. Therefore, this is absolutely about making a distinction between modern cultures identified by modern geographical terms and ancient cultures using the same geographical terms.
I personally have moved away from using the term "Nubian" to refer to Middle Nile peoples prior to the arrival of Nobiin-speakers after the fall of the Kushite kingdom. Modern Nubians obviously have a lot of ancestry from ethnic groups that lived in their current area before, but they're not exactly the same ethnic group.
That said, I think there is utility in a term for the Middle Nile region (i.e. the region between the First Cataract and the confluence of the White and Blue Nile). All geographic regions are arbitrary social constructs to one degree or another, but humans can't help but divide and categorize things anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on DJ. There was no term "Nubia" in ancient times going back to the early dynastic and predynastic. Period. There is no hand waving or arm waving around this. And these terms belie the fact that the Nile Valley part of a larger cultural complex stretching into prehistory involving various groups at various times from the Upper Nile and Sahara. Trying to separate one of these groups from the other when they are all related as "Africans" and part of the same cultural complex is the fundamental problem. The usage of the word "Nubia" for regions along the Nile today 5 to 10 thousand years later is irrelevant to that ancient historical chronology. Therefore, this is absolutely about making a distinction between modern cultures identified by modern geographical terms and ancient cultures using the same geographical terms.
I personally have moved away from using the term "Nubian" to refer to Middle Nile peoples prior to the arrival of Nobiin-speakers after the fall of the Kushite kingdom. Modern Nubians obviously have a lot of ancestry from ethnic groups that lived in their current area before, but they're not exactly the same ethnic group.
That said, I think there is utility in a term for the Middle Nile region (i.e. the region between the First Cataract and the confluence of the White and Blue Nile). All geographic regions are arbitrary social constructs to one degree or another, but humans can't help but divide and categorize things anyway.
The reasons I don't use it come down to the historically racist baggage that goes with it. And that usage still permeates its usage to this day. And my point is that in no other part of Africa are they so desperate to cling to a single term as some sort of special identifier for an ancient group of Africans than in the Nile Valley. They do this nowhere else in the Nile, which ties again to this historical baggage that Egyptology itself is determined to maintain. I get that it is typical standard naming convention to come up with labels for cultural complexes and cultures from antiquity that have no written records. But this is just something else in trying to imply an ethnic, cultural, political or social grouping beyond simple identification of artifacts. Because such an ethnic, cultural, political and social grouping did not exist. Africa is diverse and this applies to all parts of Africa. Just like there were many different cultures on the Lower Nile before unification, there were many different cultures in the Upper Nile into Sudan as well. Lumping certain groups together into some implied political, cultural or social framework based more on ideology than evidence is the part I have a problem with. Just like why is there a "Nubiology" and "Egyptology" to begin with? Is there a Romology? Is there a Greekology? No. There is European history and then within that classical European civilization and within that Roman civilization and then within that various periods within Roman civilization that one can specialize in. Same for Greece. But not in Africa as if they refuse to put the Nile into African history as a specialization within African studies and then Kmt and Kush as further specializations within that and of course beyond that there is the predynastic era Nile, the Paleolithic Nile and Holocene Nile and so forth and so on. But it is all African history not separate little independent islands of history separate from Africa.
And sure, some could argue that because they had no language and we don't know for sure how they were organized politically and culturally, the term "Nubia" is a good general umbrella term for all related groups. That kind of makes sense but then the problem becomes that there is no consistent usage of the term especially considering that the history in that region of the Nile between Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan goes back over 20,000 years and features key evolutionary sites of human activity along the Nile. But for some odd reason, they never call that "Nubian".
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an example of how Egyptology and African history are taught at a Swedish university:
Uppsala university is one of Sweden´s leading universities and the oldest in the country. They have courses in African history, African archaeology and in Egyptology. They also have courses about the archaeology of Nubia. So Egyptology is a separate discipline in relation to the other African courses. Uppsala is the only university in Sweden which teaches Egyptology and they also have more courses about African history than the other Swedish universities.
Here are descriptions of the different introductory courses
quote:African history, culture and society The course provides an overview of Africa's historical, cultural and societal development. Themes such as pre-colonial social and subsistence systems, slavery, colonialism and independence are touched upon by the episode using anthropological, archaeological and historical approaches and insights.
quote:African and Comparative Archaeology The course first describes the evolution of man and the spread of man from Africa across the world. Then, on the basis of African environments and African archaeology, general cultural manifestations such as hunting, agricultural and urban society are compared. Man's way of interacting with and mastering changing environmental conditions is taken up in a long-term perspective with examples from different parts of the world. The course also introduces the archaeological primary material, the artifacts and their context.
quote:Egyptology A The course is an introduction to the basics of the study of ancient Egypt and consists of four sub-courses, each of which deals with different aspects of Egyptology. The first part of the course provides an introduction to 5000 years of Egyptian history, from the end of prehistoric times to Egypt's incorporation into the Roman Empire. The next module covers the basic principles of how to interpret Egyptian art, and presents the most important temple and tomb monuments. The third module provides an introduction to ancient Egyptian religion, while in the fourth module you get to know the ancient Egyptian language, writing system and literature.
quote:Archeology of Nubia Nubia and Egypt have a long and entangled history. An understanding of the archeology of Nubia is essential to understanding this complex relationship. The course provides an in-depth analysis of the main archaeological sites in Nubia and their development over time from ca. 4000 BC until the Meroitic period (4th century AD). At each site, the different kinds of features, e.g. settlements, harbours, roads, temples, quarries, tombs and rock art, are studied in order to understand the function and meaning of each site.
An integral element of the course is the study and interpretation of the unique archaeological collection from the Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Nubia 1960-1964 housed at Uppsala University Museum Gustavianum.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is an example of how Egyptology and African history are taught at a Swedish university:
OK and where does the prehistory of the Nile going back to the early Neolithic, Paleolithic and Holocene fit? And where does the history of the Nile during OOA fit? All of that predates "Egypt" and "Nubia" so where do they fit?
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are research project about earlier periods in Africa, and the things you mentioned would probably be a part of the course African and Comparative Archaeology and its continuations. But what I know of there is no course specialized in the Nile valleys whole history.
When it concerns Africas earlier history there are also research projects in African archaeology and genetics like these:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Maybe one should propose courses that encompass the history of the whole Nile valley through all times, and from the sources to the delta.
My point was that the paleolithic through Middle late Middle Ages is all grouped under European history. So why isn't the same done in Africa? Obviously the answer is they consider the dynastic Nile Valley part of the "Middle East" not Africa.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Uppsala of today the courses in Egyptology are held at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History. Egyptology is it´s own subject within that department. It is often combined with courses about ancient Nubia. And if one wants to learn about other parts of Africa, or other historical periods one can take courses in African history and Archaeology.
They are of course aware of that Egypt is a part of Africa.
How they divide African history in Academia can of course vary depending on country and institution.
When it concerns museums we have Medelhavsmuseet (The Museum of the Mediterranean) in Stockholm. It is more traditional with Egypt being represented together with Greece, Rome and Cyprus. The Egyptian exhibitions covers 7000 years of Nile valley history.
Many of the collections were gathered in a time when they saw Egypt more as a part of the Mediterranean world than a part of Africa. Collections from other parts of Africa are represented mostly in the Ethnographic Museum. Both Museums are together with The East Asian Museum and The Museum of World Culture parts of an organisation called The Museums of World Culture.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In Uppsala of today the courses in Egyptology are held at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History. Egyptology is it´s own subject within that department. It is often combined with courses about ancient Nubia. And if one wants to learn about other parts of Africa, or other historical periods one can take courses in African history and Archaeology.
They are of course aware of that Egypt is a part of Africa.
How they divide African history in Academia can of course vary depending on country and institution.
When it concerns museums we have Medelhavsmuseet (The Museum of the Mediterranean) in Stockholm. It is more traditional with Egypt being represented together with Greece, Rome and Cyprus. The Egyptian exhibitions covers 7000 years of Nile valley history.
Many of the collections were gathered in a time when they saw Egypt more as a part of the Mediterranean world than a part of Africa. Collections from other parts of Africa are represented mostly in the Ethnographic Museum. Both Museums are together with The East Asian Museum and The Museum of World Culture parts of an organisation called The Museums of World Culture.
Still doesn't explain why "Egyptology" and "Nubiology" exist as separate disciplines when there is nothing similar anywhere else in the world. Rome is not a separate discipline in European history. It is a specialization. Same thing with Greece.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Often Rome and Greece are taught as Classical history and archeology and are taught separately from other European archaeology. And regarding separate disciplines we have "Sinology", teachings about China which is, or has been, separated from other Asian history and archaeology. In Sinology also teachings about the Chinese language are included, just as teaching about ancient Egyptian language is a part of Egyptology.
These divisions are a result of older traditions from a time when they divided the world into what they regarded as higher civilisations (like Egypt and Nubia) and more primitive cultures like the rest of Africa.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Often Rome and Greece are taught as Classical history and archeology and are taught separately from other European archaeology. And regarding separate disciplines we have "Sinology", teachings about China which is, or has been, separated from other Asian history and archaeology. In Sinology also teachings about the Chinese language are included, just as teaching about ancient Egyptian language is a part of Egyptology.
These divisions are a result of older traditions from a time when they divided the world into what they regarded as higher civilisations (like Egypt and Nubia) and more primitive cultures like the rest of Africa.
There is no equivalent to Egyptology or Nubiology in the study of Europe. The distinction is that Greece and Rome are still part of European history because they are the basis of "Western civilization". So even if ancient Northern and Western Europe were called barbarians and savages by the Greeks and Romans, they will never treat Greece and Rome as separate from European history. The point being that all of it is considered "European" regardless, even if much of what became Greece and Rome originated outside Europe.
On the other hand, even though the Nile Valley is completely in Africa and the Nile itself being a likely corridor for human migrations out of Africa, they separate "Nubia" and "Egypt" into separate islands unto themselves. The point being to treat them as culturally and historically separate and isolated from Africa, when all of the primary cultural connections of those cultures originate solely in Africa. The purpose of "Egyptology" and "Nubiology" is to promote and maintain that narrative of separation from Africa. The idea being that civilization was introduced to Africa from Egypt, which is not African, before moving into Nubia and from there the rest of Africa. And most of that narrative is due to racism, because they want to act as if these civilizations are the result of other races in the Nile.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
nwt 
vs. khast 
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
And exactly which texts have you been reading??! Throughout dynastic history Ta Nehesy was the term used for the land to their south NOT Ta Seti! The latter was only used for the 1st sepat. Ta Seti khast was only recorded from predynastic to proto-dynastic times after it was utterly conquered and vanquished. All Egyptology has translated the word Ta Nehesy to the Roman label of 'Nubia' and its inhabitants-- Nehesu as 'Nubians'. Only the most racist Egyptologist James Breasted has translated Nhs as "negro" which even other Egyptologists scoff at. Again Ta Seti for much of dynastic history past the Archaic Period meant the 1st sepat hence the Prophecy of Neferti speaking of the rise of the 12th dynasty coming from a "Woman of Ta Seti". That meant a woman from the southernmost sepat NOT 'Nubia'.
Printer-friendly view of this topic