...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Did "Nubians" really speak a Nilo-Saharan language?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Most repros of the Gebel Sheik Suleiman neglect to include the scripted graffito along with the art. Are the two of the same time period? Do we have abundant evidence of scripts as evolved as this "proto-Saharan script" in current and constant use in TaSeti x3st and nwt? Are there other examples of this script? How widespread was its use? The proposed translation of the proto-Saharan script above the boat in the Djebel Sheik Suleiman inscription doesn't seem to match the art very well. Gebel Sheikh Suleiman is a little north of the 2nd cataract. The inscription found there may depict a river battle involving two named settlements as indicated by the birds(?) atop the two large nwt glyphs. The djebel, which is on the west bank, had an early dynastic site. Across from it was a classic and late A-group site. On the inscription, an unmanned boat floats over three dead enemies and appears to be running down a fourth. A handtied leader on one knee is yoked to the boat's prow. A standing leader with hands tied is in front of a serekh with what very much appears to be Djer's name. He holds(?) a bow marking him as of TaSeti, the Land of the Bow. Compare Djer's serkh with the one on the inscription. [IMG]http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/djer1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/lit6.gif[/IMG] However Murnane, per Yurco, in his epigraphic analysis of the scene claims the serekh is uninscribed and thus is A-group not dynastic. But I question that. Late A-group and early dynastic cultures were contemporaries. So even if it turns out to be true that the serekh isn't inscribed with Djer's name that's still no reason it can't be early dynastic. Especially since there supposedly are early dynastic inscriptions and reliefs at the 2nd cataract. That classic and late A-group is the precursor for some pre/early dynastic kingship iconography -- as B Wms has shown with the finds from Qustul -- makes for a hard job of distinguishing the two in TaSeti. On the east bank opposite the Djebel are three Khartoum variant sites, an Abkan site, and a classic/late A-group site. On the west bank the Djebel itself only has the one site that Baines & Malek say is early dynastic. Why would the engraved sandstone slab there be A-group and why would it prominently display a personification of TaSeti bound captive to a post in front of a hawk headed serekh? I have to doubt A-group kings marking one of their own victories as a victory over TaSeti. And why would the defeat of a solitary recent site in sharp contrast to the complex of sites across the river from it that go back 800 years earlier merit a victory stele? It seems some ruler not from TaSeti was commemorating the defeat of an A-group constellation. But then again the standing man may be bound by the bow and if the serekh really is uninscribed the scene could comemmorate TaSeti subjection of two settlements that were until then independent of the state. In any event the Djebel Sheikh Suleiman inscription and the Siali storage cache seal document the earliest primary documentation of the word TaSeti the first polity of royal status on the Nile. TaSeti is thus possibly a self given name of the A-group state. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3