...
EgyptSearch Forums Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Abydos pharoanic images predate Qustul? » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
So I've been reading some discussions and apparently there's a debate about whether pharonic culture is distinctly Egyptian (and influenced Nubia) or if it's Nubian in origin. People were saying that Qustul was proof that pharonic culture began in Nubia, but then Abydos materials have been found predating it? I'm trying to see how that makes sense. I thought upper Egyptian peoples were Nubian related.

-Are people saying that Abydos had burial/cultural characteristics that could be found in "Nubian" societies of the same time period?

-I found said here on ES:
quote:

He himself states that there are MANY proto-egyptian style glyphs found in the A-Group cemetaries. Especially the pharoanic glyph found in front of the symbol for Ta-Seti. THAT says everything you need to see right there: Ta-Seti had the EARLIEST pharoanic style ruling elite PRIOR to that in Abydos OR Naquada...

What evidence and references can I read that suggest that glyphs came from Ta-Seti, including a pharoanic one?
 
Itoli
Member # 22743
 - posted
I read in an older thread that the Abydos findings were characteristically Nubian. I can't remember if the person who posited that expounded, but if that's the case then an Egyptian origin of Pharonic culture doesn't seem likely when we consider how far south Abydos is.
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Itoli:
I read in an older thread that the Abydos findings were characteristically Nubian.

If anyone has examples of this please share.
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
So I've been reading some discussions and apparently there's a debate about whether pharonic culture is distinctly Egyptian (and influenced Nubia) or if it's Nubian in origin. People were saying that Qustul was proof that pharonic culture began in Nubia, but then Abydos materials have been found predating it? I'm trying to see how that makes sense. I thought upper Egyptian peoples were Nubian related.

-Are people saying that Abydos had burial/cultural characteristics that could be found in "Nubian" societies of the same time period?

-I found said here on ES:
quote:

He himself states that there are MANY proto-egyptian style glyphs found in the A-Group cemetaries. Especially the pharoanic glyph found in front of the symbol for Ta-Seti. THAT says everything you need to see right there: Ta-Seti had the EARLIEST pharoanic style ruling elite PRIOR to that in Abydos OR Naquada...

What evidence and references can I read that suggest that glyphs came from Ta-Seti, including a pharoanic one?
They are characteristically Nile Valley and related to other Nile Valley cultures like that of Ta Seti and the culture that created Nabta Playa and the desert Oases sites like Gilf Kebir. "Nubia" has nothing to do with it and just serves to distract from the fundamental point that ancient KMT was a development of Nile Valley with a relationship to other Nile Valley cultures. Prototypes of the heiroglyphs are seen in older rock art from the Sahara and Nile Valley.
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
Sources please.
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
 -
________________________________________________________________________the pink part is theoretical


 -
This is the same supposed white crown side as the middle black and white version in the yellow but
after they added a blank stone support for the fragments

 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgUlHjeWvUw


 -


https://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/nubia/qustul-incense-burner

I am not thoroughly convinced this incense burner is showing a Hedjet crown (the white crown) and that there was necessarily a king sitting wearing that crown where the missing fragment was.
The crown here is the size of his whole torso and the legs very small in proportion to it. It looks like a child's proportions
The shape next too it he thinks is a falcon but it is highly simplified so it's hard to tell


 -
 
Itoli
Member # 22743
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[IMG]https://images2.imgbox.com/d8/49/fvHfuaS3_o.jpg[MG]

I am nit thoroughly convinced this incense burner is showing a Hedjet crown (the white crown) and that there was necessarily a king sitting wearing that crown where the missing fragment was.
The crown here is the size of his whole torso and the legs very small in proportion to it. It looks like a child's proportions
The shape next too it he thinks is a falcon but it is highly simplified so it's hard to tell

What do you think it is then? It looks like a seated person wearing the crown to me. I don't see how the size changes that because that can be due to the artistic choices of the artist to emphasize it for whatever reason (size was stylized in Egyptian and Nubian art to show importance/power, after all) to the artistic limitations of the artist, i.e. they were amateurs.
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Itoli:

It looks like a seated person wearing the crown to me.


There is no seated person on that incense burner.

What you see highlighted in pink above is speculation as to what originally may have appeared in the missing fragment they never found.
That seated figure is what Bruce Williams thinks was there originally but he does not know what was there.


 -

^^this is what they found. Bruce Williams thinks that shape is a white crown

What they found is broken off under that. They don't have that piece and never did.

The seated figure on the other picture not this one is what Bruce Williams guesses is there.

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUc6srVc8WY

Zion Lexx DEBUNKS Bro. Jabari’s assertions of the Qustul Incense Burner in Nubia


 -

^ this is the same side but turned a little. This was photographed later when they mounted the fragments in a stone-looking support that represents the complete shape of the incense burner. The smooth parts are the modern structure that the ancient pieces are set in. A lot is missing so this allows people to get a feel for the overall shape of the incense burner when it was
whole.
 
Itoli
Member # 22743
 - posted
Ah, gotcha
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
Sources please.

Sources for which? The Qustul incense burner is widely documented and published and you should already be aware of it.

But outside of that there are numerous influences from along the Nile Valley prior to the development of "Egypt". Again, "Nubia" vs "Egypt" has nothing to do with it. They are simply "Nile Valley" cultural traits with a strong Saharan cultural influence as well. There was no "nubia" or "egypt" 6,000 years ago. Just like there was no "britain" and "france" 6000 years ago either.

Numerous books have been written on this in more recent times. The idea of a "Nubia" vs "Egypt" in prehistory is more baggage from the early 1900s in archaeology. A lot of scholars simply associate the cultural trends with Nile Valley and Saharan cultural complexes.

Some examples Wadi Kubbaniya, Nabta Playa, Qurta etc.


https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/11/pictures/121129-oldest-pharaoh-rock-art-egypt-science/

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/discovering-the-artists-of-the-eastern-sahara

https://books.google.com/books?id=-zBwBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT190&lpg=PT190&dq=earliest+rock+art+nile+valley+discovery&source=bl&ots=KD6-HIK-yD&sig=h51FodFYhY_LxdjJkZ7FytSGmac&hl=en&sa=X&ved =0ahUKEwifuMOctY3YAhXBSd8KHQKtDDs4ChDoAQgoMAA#v=onepage&q=earliest%20rock%20art%20nile%20valley%20discovery&f=false

https://anthropology.net/2007/06/19/egyptian-palaeolithic-rock-art-found-at-qurta-kom-ombo/

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2011/11/nile-rock-art-is-at-least-15000-years-old/16419
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
There was no "nubia" or "egypt" 6,000 years ago.

The topic question pertains to pharoanic images, not predynastic
That is the dynastic period believed to have started approximately 3100 BC. That is 5117 years ago when there was a civilization called KMT, or "Egypt" in English which was a political entity separate from the other political entities in the region or as the Egyptians called them "nine bows"
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
Actually the topic is about where geographically the first pharoanic imagery came from. Yes there was no "nubia" or "egypt" 6k years ago. However, the general idea that the imagery could appear geographically south of Egypt or within the lands that would be come Egypt can still be discussed. For those that are saying that "Nubia was Egypt" culturally (and/or that pharonic culture came from Nubia/Sudan to Egypt):

-Can you point to evidence that suggests predynastic Abydos (which has pharonic imagery before Qustul) was part of a cultural substratum that included locations south of the geographic locations that'd become pharonic Egypt?

-Can you point to any evidence south of the geographic locations that'd become pharonic Egypt that uses pharonic imagery before Abydos?
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/hendrickx334/

The earliest representations of royal power in Egypt: the rock drawings of
Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan)


 -
Figure 2: General view of site 7 with tableau 7a (Figure. 3) in the centre.


 -
Figure 6: Site 2, tableau 2a. On the upper boat, a king wearing the white crown stands in front of a Wepwaout standard (damaged by modern inscriptions).
Image 6 of 10

http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp363-ss14/files/2013/01/ant0861068.pdf


 -
On the upper boat, a king wearing the white crown stands in front of a Wepwaout standard (older photo before damage by modern inscriptions).


Mohamed El-Beyali, the general director of Aswan and Nubia monuments, said that the Nag El-Hamdulab cycle of images probably dates back to about 3200 BCE, corresponding to the late Naqada period.
about 5,200 years ago
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
[QB] So I've been reading some discussions and apparently there's a debate about whether pharonic culture is distinctly Egyptian (and influenced Nubia) or if it's Nubian in origin. People were saying that Qustul was proof that pharonic culture began in Nubia, but then Abydos materials have been found predating it?

Doug put the link up, I put the photos up of the earliest representations of royal power in Egypt: the rock drawings of
Nag el-Hamdulab in Aswan.

What "Abydos materials " are you talking about? Where are your sources ?
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
I thought that Abydos' materials were around 3300-3400 BC (http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003538).

quote:
The earliest known examples of Egyptian royal iconography, such as, e.g., the representation of the Red Crown on a late Naqada I (c. 3500 BC) pottery vessel from Abydos or the triumphal scenes in the painting from Hierakonpolis Tomb 100 (c. 3400-3300 BC) are much older than the Qustul censer. It seems thus that it was the Qustul rulers who adopted symbols of royal authority developed in Egypt and not vice versa.
Török, László. Between Two Worlds : The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt, 3700 BC-AD 500. In Probleme Der Ägyptologie. Leiden: Brill. 2009. ISBN 9789004171978

...What is the official date of the Abydos stuff they say predates Qustul? [Confused]
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
I thought that Abydos' materials were around 3300-3400 BC (http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003538).

quote:
The earliest known examples of Egyptian royal iconography, such as, e.g., the representation of the Red Crown on a late Naqada I (c. 3500 BC) pottery vessel from Abydos or the triumphal scenes in the painting from Hierakonpolis Tomb 100 (c. 3400-3300 BC) are much older than the Qustul censer. It seems thus that it was the Qustul rulers who adopted symbols of royal authority developed in Egypt and not vice versa.
Török, László. Between Two Worlds : The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt, 3700 BC-AD 500. In Probleme Der Ägyptologie. Leiden: Brill. 2009. ISBN 9789004171978

...What is the official date of the Abydos stuff they say predates Qustul? [Confused]

All of the dating in this period is probably speculative to the extent of give or take a few hundred years

I don't have time now, you can look into it, Török's references 122 and 123

https://books.google.com/books?id=irbP2hHqDAwC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=


Look those titles up, notes at the end of p 43 from 1993 and 1973
 
Itoli
Member # 22743
 - posted
^Correction to my other post: They were referring to the Aswan findings not the Abydos. I got them mixed up.
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
 -
Narmer with red crown


Abydos

 -
, a sherd of Naqada I pottery dating from the mid-fourth millennium. A Red Crown of Lower Egypt is shown
Grave 1610
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

Petrie excavated it from tomb 1610 to which he gave the sequence dates 35-9, i.e. the end of Naqada I or the very beginning of Naqada II.


quote:



The earliest representation of the Red Crown, discovered in a community of Upper Egypt. The pottery ware is distinct black-and-red Badarian, a Southern community whose influence spread through the country around 3600 BCE


quote:

The earliest known examples of Egyptian royal iconography, such as, e.g., the representation of the Red Crown on a late Naqada I (c. 3500BC) pottery vessel from Abydos122

Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region Between Ancient ...
László Török - ‎2009 -

 -
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
Thank you. This is the red crown though. Didn't Egypt combine the red and white crowns? If the white crown did originate in Qustul doesn't that mean that at least part of the pharaonic tradition comes from Qustul? Wasn't the white crown more dominant over those wearing the red one too?

Just a possible hunch, but it seems as though people are denying that ideas of nobility and royal iconography lacked the variation that would eventually combine to establish the pharaonic tradition. If Qustul was where the white crown came from, what is happening is very wrong. It would mean that through generalizing pharonic imagery and where the first images came from as a whole, people from Qustul are denied any contribution to Egyptian history. I wouldn't really be able to say for sure what's going on until there was a comparison of dates for tomb/cemetery U/U-j vs. tomb/cemetery L.
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
If the white crown did originate in Qustul doesn't that mean that at least part of the pharaonic tradition comes from Qustul? Wasn't the white crown more dominant over those wearing the red one too?


why are you saying the white crown originated in Qustul?
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
As to why I am harping on refusing to use "Egypt" or "Nubia" as terms for this ancient period.

quote:

Mohamed El-Beyali, the general director of Aswan and Nubia monuments, said that the Nag El-Hamdulab cycle of images probably dates back to about 3200 BCE, corresponding to the late Naqada period.

Naqada is another term created by Egyptologists to define the time periods in the dynastic. These terms are used to separate "Egyptian" cultural development from "Nubian" cultural development. But here is the problem, both of those cultures overlap because they both have a common root as "Nile Valley" complexes. Hence the reason why "Egypt" vs "Nubia" is misleading. Likewise, there was no "Naqada" in ancient Egypt. The town the Arabs called Naqada was called "Nubt" in ancient Egypt. And therefore, just going by that, this region would have been a centered around the gold trade. Therefore at this time and using the actual language of the people of KMT this region would have been considered the "Nubian" region meaning the "golden" region. This is commonly seen in reference to the god Set who first arose in Nubt and that was the prime center of his worship in the predynastic. Therefore, just going by the concept of "gold" in ancient Egypt, the term has no significance for cultures OUTSIDE of Egypt proper.

Petrie is the one who came up with the naming system using "Naqada".

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/naqadan/chronology.html

And here is the book where he laid it out and in the first introduction chapter you see him referencing the artifacts of the "new race" as part of the defining characteristics of these cultural artifacts. So from the very beginning the whole point of these naming systems was to make a "racial" distinction in cultural artifacts between so-called "Egypt" and so-called "Nubia" even before the state of KMT even existed. Therefore, many people today assume that there was actually a separation between these two entities because of this but the fact is that no such distinction existed. That is why so many of the earliest traces of Egyptian culture are found in the far South and even more would be seen today if they had not flooded Aswan.

In reality it was all overlapping even after the formation of the state of ancient KMT.

quote:

Nubt is justly revered as a site that has been used since predynastic times. Our elders say it was one of the largest predynastic sites in ancient times. There may have been a planned town here 100 years before the first dynasty.

Around 3500-3000 BC, there were three confederacies in Upper Kemet. One was the Confederacy of Nubt, which included the towns of Nubt, Gebtu, Gesy, Madu, Wast (Thebes), Iuny (Armant), and Djerty. There was also the Confederacy of Abydos and the Confederacy of Nekhen.

Over time, Egyptians have gone on pilgrimages to Nubt, Nekhen, and Abedju because of their ties to the early leaders. Nubt was the necropolis for the first dynasty, and with Gebtu, it was in a good position to be the center of the predynastic gold trade. Set was born around here and was connected to kings from the Early Dynasty on. First Dynasty queens had a title "she who sees Horus and Set." Peribsen from the 2nd Dynasty emphasized Set.

We have found lots of pottery and cylinder seals with names like Narmer, Aha, and so on. Cylinder seals are carved seals that came to Egypt in predynastic or Early Dynastic times, probably from far off Sumeria. Egyptians used the seals to imprint titles onto clay. Some had metal handles. Many in the early dynasties were held in the hand and were shaped like a scarab. They could be made of black steatite, serpentine, ivory, or wood, and they could be carried on the cord around the neck. Three kilometers northwest of what seers say will be the village of Naqada is a mastaba reputed to have stone vases and ivory labels and clay sealings with the name of Aha and Neithhotep.

Some say there are remains of predynastic Nubt in what they call the "South Town." They say predynastic Nubt probably had 50-250 people and covered a few thousand square meters to three hectares. It was a walled town of brick, connected to cemeteries. Cemetery T is rumored to be a rich cemetery, with 2,149 graves in 17 acres. But don't go digging. One person claims they weren't digging, but they did find a sherd fragment from a large black-topped red-ware vase (from Naqada I). The sherd has what looks like the red crown Narmer wears on his macehead. As everyone knows, the Red Crown is later associated with Lower Egypt. Could the symbolic Red Crown have been applied to the Lower Egypt but really started in our city? Red is of course associated with Set, and Nubt is a center for Set. Could the red color originally refer to him? The next time you see a picture of the red crown, think of Nubt.

What were our early ancestors like? Seers say that future people will name our ancestors after our city.
Naqada I

They might call 4000-3500 B.C. the Naqada I period, or Amratian. There are similar items found from Deir Tasa to Nekhen to Nubia, all belonging to the same period, and there is a concentration of sites between Nubt and Abedju/Abydos.

Some of the earliest settlements may have been camps on levees by the River edge, but this is all gone, of course. At the edge of the Nubt floodplain was one of the earliest and largest settlements. Nubt was over 90 square meters; predynastic Nekhen was smaller. The Nile fluctuated every 50 years, and when a low Nile period coincided with a low rainfall, people drew nearer the river valley as things dried up.

The earliest Egyptians had wattle and daub oval huts with hearths. They used wind breaks and cooking pots, bifacial flint knives, basalt vases, mace-heads, slate palettes, and ivory carvings. They had ritual figures of ivory or clay that could be animals or humans. Metal was rare. At first they had black-topped pottery, but that lost out to red pottery, some with white designs. The earliest graves were shallow. They covered their dead with matting, twigs, or animal skins.
Naqada II

Future people might also call 3500-3000 B.C. the Naqada II period, or Gerzean. Items from this development have been found from the Delta to the Nubian border, with most found south of Abydos. Men and women braided their hair and wore shell or stone bead necklaces. People have found Palestinian-influenced pots with tilted spouts and handles. There was more trade than before. They also had light-colored pottery of clay and calcium carbonate. At first, they decorated their pots with red patterns, but then they decorated with drawings of animals, boats, trees, and herds. Pottery was probably mass-produced in certain areas for trade. Copper was used for weapons and jewelry. They also used gold foil and silver, flint blades, and beads and amulets of metal and lapis lazuli. These Egyptians had brick houses, although they were small, one-room houses with an enclosed courtyard. They had irrigation projects. A temple at Nekhen had battered walls. Sometime in the late predynastic, people of the south tried to conquer the north. Like good Egyptians, they had funerary pottery, mortuary cults, and graves with niches for offerings. Some graves are reputed to have plastered, painted walls with rectangular pits lined with branches woven together. Our ancient ancestors put burnished pottery in the north and wavy handled jars in the south section of the tomb. Important people were buried in larger tombs away from others, showing class distinction for the first time.

http://www.virtualkemet.com/5thnome/nubt/predyn.htm
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
my appologies lioness, I read a source incorrectly. Doug, what you say is going by a major technicality. Yes "Nubt" may have been the name, but they're giving "Nubians" and "Egyptians" different labels to imply cultural or biological distinction. Even if "nubt" can mean gold, this doesn't prove relationship, only that sites had similar resources. What you should be investing your attention towards, is sorting out if/how these predynastic/dynastic period "Egyptians" and "Nubians" were culturally and biologically the same people. How do we know the people of Nubt, Abydos and so on were the same people as the Africans that were living in what's called (in modern language) Sudan? What predynastic cultural and biological expressions did they share that would suggest this? Not just summaries, I mean tangible descriptions of data, specific studies that talk about bodies, the material culture, etc.
I don't know if I'm explaining what I'm trying to say properly. If not, sorry.
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
my appologies lioness, I read a source incorrectly. Doug, what you say is going by a major technicality. Yes "Nubt" may have been the name, but they're giving "Nubians" and "Egyptians" different labels to imply cultural or biological distinction. Even if "nubt" can mean gold, this doesn't prove relationship, only that sites had similar resources. What you should be investing your attention towards, is sorting out if/how these predynastic/dynastic period "Egyptians" and "Nubians" were culturally and biologically the same people. How do we know the people of Nubt, Abydos and so on were the same people as the Africans that were living in what's called (in modern language) Sudan? What predynastic cultural and biological expressions did they share that would suggest this? Not just summaries, I mean tangible descriptions of data, specific studies that talk about bodies, the material culture, etc.
I don't know if I'm explaining what I'm trying to say properly. If not, sorry.

I just said that the "egyptian" vs "nubian" dichotomy is a false one which obviously means that they were overlapping cultures and populations in the area of between Aswan and Abydos.

Not sure how you missed that.
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
my appologies lioness, I read a source incorrectly. Doug, what you say is going by a major technicality. Yes "Nubt" may have been the name, but they're giving "Nubians" and "Egyptians" different labels to imply cultural or biological distinction. Even if "nubt" can mean gold, this doesn't prove relationship, only that sites had similar resources. What you should be investing your attention towards, is sorting out if/how these predynastic/dynastic period "Egyptians" and "Nubians" were culturally and biologically the same people. How do we know the people of Nubt, Abydos and so on were the same people as the Africans that were living in what's called (in modern language) Sudan? What predynastic cultural and biological expressions did they share that would suggest this? Not just summaries, I mean tangible descriptions of data, specific studies that talk about bodies, the material culture, etc.
I don't know if I'm explaining what I'm trying to say properly. If not, sorry.

I just said that the "egyptian" vs "nubian" dichotomy is a false one which obviously means that they were overlapping cultures and populations in the area of between Aswan and Abydos.

Not sure how you missed that.

Renee Friedman has been doing a lot of work in this region and wrote some articles on these populations. However, generally most papers stick to the Egypt vs Nubia dichotomy. Yet there was the X-Ray atlas of Royal mummies which showed similarities between various Pharaohs and other so-called "nubian" remains. Outside of that I am not sure what papers specifically address biological similarities/differences between predynastic cultures and other cultures along the Nile Valley
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
my appologies lioness, I read a source incorrectly. Doug, what you say is going by a major technicality. Yes "Nubt" may have been the name, but they're giving "Nubians" and "Egyptians" different labels to imply cultural or biological distinction. Even if "nubt" can mean gold, this doesn't prove relationship, only that sites had similar resources. What you should be investing your attention towards, is sorting out if/how these predynastic/dynastic period "Egyptians" and "Nubians" were culturally and biologically the same people. How do we know the people of Nubt, Abydos and so on were the same people as the Africans that were living in what's called (in modern language) Sudan? What predynastic cultural and biological expressions did they share that would suggest this? Not just summaries, I mean tangible descriptions of data, specific studies that talk about bodies, the material culture, etc.
I don't know if I'm explaining what I'm trying to say properly. If not, sorry.

I just said that the "egyptian" vs "nubian" dichotomy is a false one which obviously means that they were overlapping cultures and populations in the area of between Aswan and Abydos.

Not sure how you missed that.

Yes you said it but you don't have much if any research that shows this.
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
my appologies lioness, I read a source incorrectly. Doug, what you say is going by a major technicality. Yes "Nubt" may have been the name, but they're giving "Nubians" and "Egyptians" different labels to imply cultural or biological distinction. Even if "nubt" can mean gold, this doesn't prove relationship, only that sites had similar resources. What you should be investing your attention towards, is sorting out if/how these predynastic/dynastic period "Egyptians" and "Nubians" were culturally and biologically the same people. How do we know the people of Nubt, Abydos and so on were the same people as the Africans that were living in what's called (in modern language) Sudan? What predynastic cultural and biological expressions did they share that would suggest this? Not just summaries, I mean tangible descriptions of data, specific studies that talk about bodies, the material culture, etc.
I don't know if I'm explaining what I'm trying to say properly. If not, sorry.

I just said that the "egyptian" vs "nubian" dichotomy is a false one which obviously means that they were overlapping cultures and populations in the area of between Aswan and Abydos.

Not sure how you missed that.

Yes you said it but you don't have much if any research that shows this.
There is research but I am not sure why you are acting as if this is the 1980s where the internet is just being born. Can't you find your own articles? I just stated there is the X-Ray atlas of Royal mummies, but generally there is no serious scholarly paper comparing "egyptian" remains and "nubian" remains. And there certainly isn't much DNA work on "egypt" and much less on "Nubia" from the predynastic. Again, most of the historical comparison and distinctions between "egypt" and "nubia" in the predynastic is based on archaeological studies of artifacts like pottery. For all the hype that surrounds Egypt and its history there is relatively little in the way of actual biological papers on actual ancient remains.

Have you not looked at the works of Keita? What about Diop?

I mean have you not looked yourself?
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
my appologies lioness, I read a source incorrectly. Doug, what you say is going by a major technicality. Yes "Nubt" may have been the name, but they're giving "Nubians" and "Egyptians" different labels to imply cultural or biological distinction. Even if "nubt" can mean gold, this doesn't prove relationship, only that sites had similar resources. What you should be investing your attention towards, is sorting out if/how these predynastic/dynastic period "Egyptians" and "Nubians" were culturally and biologically the same people. How do we know the people of Nubt, Abydos and so on were the same people as the Africans that were living in what's called (in modern language) Sudan? What predynastic cultural and biological expressions did they share that would suggest this? Not just summaries, I mean tangible descriptions of data, specific studies that talk about bodies, the material culture, etc.
I don't know if I'm explaining what I'm trying to say properly. If not, sorry.

I just said that the "egyptian" vs "nubian" dichotomy is a false one which obviously means that they were overlapping cultures and populations in the area of between Aswan and Abydos.

Not sure how you missed that.

Yes you said it but you don't have much if any research that shows this.
There is research but I am not sure why you are acting as if this is the 1980s where the internet is just being born. Can't you find your own articles?
Your claim, your research.
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
my appologies lioness, I read a source incorrectly. Doug, what you say is going by a major technicality. Yes "Nubt" may have been the name, but they're giving "Nubians" and "Egyptians" different labels to imply cultural or biological distinction. Even if "nubt" can mean gold, this doesn't prove relationship, only that sites had similar resources. What you should be investing your attention towards, is sorting out if/how these predynastic/dynastic period "Egyptians" and "Nubians" were culturally and biologically the same people. How do we know the people of Nubt, Abydos and so on were the same people as the Africans that were living in what's called (in modern language) Sudan? What predynastic cultural and biological expressions did they share that would suggest this? Not just summaries, I mean tangible descriptions of data, specific studies that talk about bodies, the material culture, etc.
I don't know if I'm explaining what I'm trying to say properly. If not, sorry.

I just said that the "egyptian" vs "nubian" dichotomy is a false one which obviously means that they were overlapping cultures and populations in the area of between Aswan and Abydos.

Not sure how you missed that.

Yes you said it but you don't have much if any research that shows this.
There is research but I am not sure why you are acting as if this is the 1980s where the internet is just being born. Can't you find your own articles?
Your claim, your research.
What claim? I posted sources for everything I said including the archaeologists who made up the whole naming system for the artifacts found during the predynastic. Namely Petrie and Reisner. Between the two of them they uncovered MOST of the artifacts covering the two areas of the Upper Nile now labelled as "Egypt" and "Nubia". So the issue is whether their naming system is actually distorting the fact that the two cultures share a common root. This is the significance of the oldest rock art being in Upper Egypt around Aswan. So if you are looking for those connections you will have to do the research on these collections and the artifacts that were excavated yourself and decide. Reisner was one of the main excavators of "Nubia" in the early 1900s.

http://www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi1/1_retel1.htm

Nabta Playa is one of the most cited areas related to the development of Ancient Egypt and it is located in the "Nubian" Desert of Southern Egypt.

https://books.google.com/books?id=JIPyYRpGRhgC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=nabta+playa+rock+art&source=bl&ots=GsEghWYVzk&sig=q9Pgr5pmLpbEJuhXirV5ofpOeq4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKuf-SqJTYAhU ClpAKHaUGAN0Q6AEIWTAM#v=onepage&q=nabta%20playa%20rock%20art&f=false

nabta playa pottery features black topped pottery which is common in later "Egyptian" pottery.

There are many common patterns of cultural artifacts found from the regions to the south of Egypt. There have been a few already posted on this thread. More than enough for you to start your own research on. The only point I am making is that much of this stuff is not strictly labeled "nubian" or "Egyptian", like Nabta Playa. Just research the more general history of the Nile Valley between Kerma, Nabta Playa, Gebel Silisia, Wadi Kubbaniyah and there will be a lot of data on how culture spread into what became later Egypt.

IN fact I would investigate all the excavation work that has already gone on and is still going on in the region of Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan to find out what they are "finding" in these places. Because for all the stuff that has been excavated there sure is not a lot of papers being done on it and putting it all into context.

quote:

The Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project -- AKAP -- is a joint venture between Yale and the University of Bologna, led by Gatto and Antonio Curci, with an international research team from Europe, America and Egypt that includes Hendrickx and Darnell. Now in its seventh season, the project aims to survey and rescue the archaeology of the region between Aswan and Kom Ombo, in the southern part of Upper Egypt.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804220442.htm

quote:

The main aim of the project is improving the current understanding of the interaction between Egyptian and Nubian populations along their border.

 -
https://egyptology.yale.edu/expeditions/past-and-joint-projects/aswan-kom-ombo-archaeological-project-akap

And of course this stuff has been discussed on the forum before but you will have to search.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008895;p=1

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=8;t=007496;go=newer
 
Doug M
Member # 7650
 - posted
Also the thing I forgot to mention is that this region has always been part of KMT. The Area between Aswan and somewhere South of Nubt (Naqada) was called Ta Seti and the first nome(state) of ancient KMT. The implications of this is that any populations and cultures in this area were part of the state of ancient Egypt from the beginning. Kom Ombo on this map is actually ancient "Nubt" or Naqada. Therefore all of these areas on the map are part of the state and not separate from it. These same areas are part of what we call the "Naqadan" predynastic, which in reality is an extension of the town of "Nubt" and the gold came from these areas. That is why I am saying be careful with following the terminology. All of that area in the image is part of ancient "Egypt" not a separate entity called "Nubia".

 -

Here is a map of the nomes (states) of Egypt and the Nile proper. Buhen and Abu Simbel are far South of Aswan.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nome_(Egypt)

Qustul is further South of Aswan in an area between the first and second cataract of the Nile. Yet this "nubia" is not the same "nubia" as the populations between Aswan and Nubt. Yet Egyptologists constantly lump them all together as one causing a lot of confusion, which is why I don't use the term in that historical context.

 -


Here is a full paper on the early rock are discoveries between Nubt/Naqada/Sudan and Lower Sudan:

http://www.disci.unibo.it/it/ricerca/archeologia/missioni-archeologiche/missioni-archeologiche-allestero/aswan-kom-ombo-egitto/report-missioni-akap/report-2010


The same team wrote the following book:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Cultural_entanglement_at_the_dawn_of_the.html?id=YNNJDgAAQBAJ

Which only states the obvious that the previous "race based" distinctions of Petrie and Reisner in terms of classifying artifacts was bogus to begin with.

The scholar behind these works is Maria Gatto:
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/associates/maria-gatto

And she has a new work (again trying to maintain this bogus concept of an ancient entity called "Nubia" which did not exist in prehistory) that has yet to be published:
Gatto, M.C., in progress. Pastoralism, Complexity and Power in Prehistoric Nubia: Beyond the A-Group (contract under discussion with Cambridge University Press).

Another site that kind of summarizes the issues with these European studies in the area:
https://rapgod.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/nubia-kom-ombo-the-city-of-gold-in-ta-seti/
 
Djehuti
Member # 6698
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

So I've been reading some discussions and apparently there's a debate about whether pharonic culture is distinctly Egyptian (and influenced Nubia) or if it's Nubian in origin. People were saying that Qustul was proof that pharonic culture began in Nubia, but then Abydos materials have been found predating it? I'm trying to see how that makes sense. I thought upper Egyptian peoples were Nubian related.

-Are people saying that Abydos had burial/cultural characteristics that could be found in "Nubian" societies of the same time period?

-I found said here on ES:
quote:

He himself states that there are MANY proto-egyptian style glyphs found in the A-Group cemetaries. Especially the pharoanic glyph found in front of the symbol for Ta-Seti. THAT says everything you need to see right there: Ta-Seti had the EARLIEST pharoanic style ruling elite PRIOR to that in Abydos OR Naquada...

What evidence and references can I read that suggest that glyphs came from Ta-Seti, including a pharoanic one?
I don't think that quote you cited above comes from me, but there were various threads where I have stated the theory of Egyptian kingship coming from Nubia if not Ta-Seti itself and that proof of this comes from proto-hieroglyphs in the areas of Qustul and Sayalah not only from grave sites but the oldest of which are found in rock petroglyphs.

As was discussed before here, proto-heiroglyphs in Egypt were found in predynastic Abutu (Abydos):

One presentation, entitled the "Beginnings of Writing in Ancient Egypt," was given by Gunther Dreyer who is now heading the German Institute of Archaeology in Cairo. For over twenty-five years, this Institute has been at the forefront of forging a reexamination of the Royal Necropolis of Abydos in Upper Egypt. This site is often referred to as Umm el-Qaab or the "Mother of Pots" because of the large number of vessels and jars found there used for funerary offerings in the context of burial sites and rituals. Dreyer defined writing as "a system to encode the sounds of language by using signs." To illustrate his point, he provided a modern-day example of our ability to look at traffic signs and understand their meaning without being able to "read" them because they do not represent sounds. When signs are used to represent sounds in systematic ways the beginnings of writing emerge. In interpreting various inscribed tags, seals, pottery, and jars found, Dreyer placed the origin of writing in Ancient Egypt at approximately 3400 B.C. He highlighted the theme of trade and commerce as perhaps being the catalyst for the emergence of writing because various objects describe quantities of imported and exported goods such as oil and fat functioning as tribute…


 -

3400 B.C. is the date of this earliest writing in Egypt which places it in the Naqada II period, yet the earliest A-Group royal burials in Nubia date to 3800 B.C. which is Naqada I and proto-glyphs are found in the same area etched in rock which makes dating more difficult.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -

I am not thoroughly convinced this incense burner is showing a Hedjet crown (the white crown) and that there was necessarily a king sitting wearing that crown where the missing fragment was.
The crown here is the size of his whole torso and the legs very small in proportion to it. It looks like a child's proportions
The shape next too it he thinks is a falcon but it is highly simplified so it's hard to tell

Irrelevant strawman. The incense burner is not the first all be all of Qustul culture and your interpretations on "child" proportions of the artwork don't even matter, especially considering there did exist child-kings!

I also take it your selective amnesia also made you omit the significant finding several years ago of the oldest known depiction of a pharaoh recently found.

As I posted elsewhere:

http://news.yale.edu/2011/07/07/earliest-image-egyptian-ruler-wearing-white-crown-royalty-brought-light

Not only is the oldest known depiction of a white crown found in the Nag el-Hamdulab rock painting, but it's the oldest known depiction of a pharaonic crown or pharaoh anywhere thus far. Nag el-Hamdulab is a site located in the west bank of the Nile just north of Aswan.

The rock art features a royal procession with two standard bearers in front (though the standards are not clear at least from the photos I can see) and the figure of a man holding a cane-like staff in one hand and perhaps a flail in the other and is presumably wearing a hedjet (white crown) who is then followed by a fan-bearer.

 -

As Explorer states in his blog, Egyptologists and other scholars are hailing this find as the earliest depiction of a figure in pharaonic regalia and one that predates even the Qustul incense burner so as to suggest that Egyptian kingship is posterior to that of Qustul. However, as Explorer remarks, this finding is rather far from the earliest centers of pharaonic activity-- namely from north to south Abutu (Abydos), Nubt (Naqada), and Nekhen (Hierakonpolis)-- and much closer to cultural centers of Lower Nubia. What's more is that Explorer keenly points out the fact that always when an Egyptian pharaoh is depicted his Heru (Horus) or hawk totem is also depicted, yet nowhere is that animal shown in the rock art! Instead some other animal is shown directly in front of the kingly figure. This animal appears quadrupedal with a stocky body, long snout, point ears, and a tail curled over its back. Such an animal is not found in any of the later predynastic to proto-dynastic depictions of kings in Egypt. Yet it IS found somewhere else!...

Qustul Incense Burner
 -

The strange irony or rather contradiction is that even before the discovery of this rock painting in Nag el-Hamdulab, Egyptologists have long noted that since predynastic times the southern periphery of Upper Egypt around the Aswan-Elephantine area was inhabited by people of A-Group affinity. In fact, so much so that this area which was declared the 1st sepat by the Egyptians was named *Ta-Seti*!!

 -

Yet with the discovery of this rock painting in the very area, they now say the king depicted was 'Egyptian' and not 'Nubian'. The Yale source I cited above even goes so far as to say the painting itself depicts an Egyptian king in a triumphant procession over Nubians or collecting tribute from them! To say there is a bias is an understatement...
 
Djehuti
Member # 6698
 - posted
^ One other thing I need to correct about my repost above. I used to think that the country the Egyptians called Khent-honefer (Beginning of Pefect Order) also known as Ta Khent (Land of Beginning) was the same as Ta-Seti, but it is NOT. Ta Khent was an entirely different country though one still existing to the south of Kmt, specifically somewhere in the southeast. In fact, I remember from old Egyptology sources how certain pharaohs would make pilgrimages to or seek refuge in Ta-Khent during times of upheaval or calamity. This should come as no surprise considering that there are legends of the ancestors of the first kings coming from Ta-Khent whose divine ancestors in turn came from Ta Neter in Pwnt.
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:


I also take it your selective amnesia also made you omit the significant finding several years ago of the oldest known depiction of a pharaoh recently found.

As I posted elsewhere:

http://news.yale.edu/2011/07/07/earliest-image-egyptian-ruler-wearing-white-crown-royalty-brought-light

Not only is the oldest known depiction of a white crown found in the Nag el-Hamdulab rock painting, but it's the oldest known depiction of a pharaonic crown or pharaoh anywhere thus far. Nag el-Hamdulab is a site located in the west bank of the Nile just north of Aswan.


So you didn't notice I already posted this picture in this thread ??


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:

 -



 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
Some slight confusion, trying to compare it to wikipedia' sources:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9En6tzUJCXkC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=white+crown+incense+burner+from+Cemetery+at+Qustul&source=bl&ots=KwMLLUQEkH&sig=zfnyeei7Zv9AMpHc4WP1P4wjvRg&h l=en&sa=X&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCGoVChMIvZn7sb-UxgIVoRbbCh1CnADk#v=onepage&q=white%20crown%20incense%20burner%20from%20Cemetery%20at%20Qustul&f=false


That's what the source, debunking the incense burner at Qustul by citing Jane Roy who seems to suggest that tomb U-j in Abydos had some kind of earlier version of the white crown dating to Naqada IIIA. The sourcing she uses (Dreyer's Umm el-Qaab I: Das prädynastische Königsgrab. U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse (Mainz, 1998) is proving a bit difficult to work with (no specific page number in the available pages I can see). I don't have the source she's talking about to read either. So is the site at Aswan earlier than U-j?
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
http://www.odysseyadventures.ca/articles/mastabas/abydos.html

ABYDOS

(excerpt)

Tomb U-j represents a dramatic leap in scale and complexity over previous tombs and must have belonged to an extraordinary individual. The excavators found traces of a wooden shrine in the burial chamber (Room 1) along with an ivory heqa-sceptre (essentially a shepherd’s crook), which was a powerful symbol of kingship in the historic period.

 -
https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/Z4Q-2650974

 -


https://books.google.com/books?id=j8vhBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=ivory+heka+scepter,U-j,+Abydos.&source=bl&ots=g7UEPwOBSt&s

Exploring Ancient Egypt
By Ian Shaw

 -
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

I also take it your selective amnesia also made you omit the significant finding several years ago of the oldest known depiction of a pharaoh recently found.

As I posted elsewhere:

http://news.yale.edu/2011/07/07/earliest-image-egyptian-ruler-wearing-white-crown-royalty-brought-light

Not only is the oldest known depiction of a white crown found in the Nag el-Hamdulab rock painting, but it's the oldest known depiction of a pharaonic crown or pharaoh anywhere thus far. Nag el-Hamdulab is a site located in the west bank of the Nile just north of Aswan.


Was Aswan still under Qustul control? The link dates this to 3200 which is near unification. I thought Nubt and Ta Seti/Qustul fell as independent kingdoms at that time, by Hierakonpolis or Abydos. Any evidence to read saying the contrary?
 
Djehuti
Member # 6698
 - posted
^ Good question. Qustul was vanquished by Egypt only after its unification around 3100 BCE. However the southernmost sepat of Ta Seti or more specifically its capital Yebu (Elephantine) was already being assimilated into Ta Shemau (Upper Egypt) before the unification. What's interesting about the Nag el-Hamdulab petroglyphs however is the fact that unlike the typical dynastic Egyptian or even proto-dynastic kings of Abydos there is no falcon totem depicted. Instead there is there is a mysterious quadriped that bears a striking resemblance to that depicted in the Qustul incence burner. This is something that the Egyptologists have not been able to explain despite their claims that the king depicted was ethnically 'Egyptian'.
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
What do you mean by quadriped? If this is the case, it'd imply Ta-Seti existed during this time period and that the earliest crown was of Ta-Seti origin. This has heavy implications for usage of the Egyptian double crown.
 
Tukuler
Member # 19944
 - posted
Following 2 items reposted from Dynastic Race thread

  • quote:
    Originally posted by Djehuti:
    Another correction. The creature labeled as 'feline' is wrong. Felines don't have long snouts and long digits on both fore and hind paws. The animal is most likely a baboon as that is another sacred animal to Nubians as well as Egyptians.

    Also the oldest representation of a Nile boat comes from the Khartoum Mesolithic in Sudan as discussed here.


  • quote:
    by Explorer:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Tukuler:
    This is one of the pieces I misread
     -  -
    ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=9En6tzUJCXkC&pg=PA216 ^


    Okay, it's now starting to make sense how you drew the connection, granted that the source doesn't actually mention the White Crown itself.
    Jane Roy
    The politics of trade: Egypt and lower Nubia in the 4th millennium BC
    Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011


    The author explicitly states Qustul Pharaonic
    iconography is later than the same in Egypt
    and listed the icons
    - palace facades,
    - sacred barque,
    - Horus falcon,
    - robed human,
    - White Crown,
    for which she references Dreyer 1998 Umm el~Qaab.

    From that one would expect the given reference
    to in fact cataloque each of those icons, White
    Crown included. So far my researches only uncover
    1 & 3 from U-j. Has anyone seen U-j represent the
    other icons? And, keep in mind Qustul has at least
    one more Pharaonic icon, the rosette. Is that in U-j?

    Why didn't the author simply give any supporting
    particular examples? I apply this to all authors
    presenting the same inconclusiveness as a fact.

    I mean why don't they just show us the U-j White
    Crown and guestimates of its date. That'd be the
    most objective way to go about disputing Williams.

 



Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3