...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Kmt The 3 Lands?: Ethnicity vs. Polity
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ 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 [b]region[/b] that region being Ta Nehesi. The Edfu text you cited described Ta-Seti [i]khast[/i] 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.. [IMG]https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fadbd0054e7da3f45d4129192fd90459-lq[/IMG] clearly describes the defeat of the rival kingdom of Ta-Seti [i]in[/i] 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. [/qb][/QUOTE]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. [b]THINK[/b] 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] [b]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.[/b] 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. [/QUOTE] https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/woe/woe03.htm 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 [b]NOT[/b] 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,[/QUOTE] https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg07.htm 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.[/QUOTE] https://isac.uchicago.edu/research/research-archives-library/dissertations/behdetite-study-horus-behdetite-old-kingdom 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. [/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