posted 11 December 2004 12:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Wally a good research project would be to see if Egyptians used this "x" determinant in any cities we now call Nubia. This would give us a better understanding of where Egyptians thought their southern border was.

---

So, I thought I'd take a look see, and here's what I found (EWB; -Geographical Names):
Now, conventional ideas on Ancient Egypt's southern border was that it ended at Aswan.

Not according to the Ancient Egyptians:
Qenus (Nwt) 1044b - Southern Nubia
Kenus (Nwt/Khast) - Southern Nubia - the contemporary Kenus are an ethnic Nubian ethnic group (ie, real Nubians)
Ta Khent (Nwt) 1051b - Land of the beginning; the southern Sudan
Berua (Nwt) 980a - Meroe; capital of the kingdom of Meroe
Masha (Nwt) a town in Sudan
Merowe (Nwt/Khast) 997a - Meroe
Meroe (Nwt) 1001a

Some Sudanese towns with the Nu determinative; there are quite a few others as well

Tar...Shema 1053b
Ta het
Khenti - 1027 - The Leader/Chief/Founder

Other significants

Khent hen Nefer (Khast) 1028a - "Head of the perfect order" - southern Sudan from whence came the Khentiu (Khentou) Hon Nefer - "Founders of the Perfect Order" ie, Kemetian civilization...

Ta Set (Nwt) 1051b - district in Upper Egypt
Ta Sti (Khast) 1051b - "Land of the Bow" ie, Nubia

What do you think?...

posted 11 December 2004 06:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
That is a very find. If the Egyptians came from the south, could it be possible that they considered that their land as well? This is an important step in the right direction. Now if only there were more Egyptologists willing to ask these questions.

I don't know if you remember a while back when Dr. Alsadawis used to post here, but he mentioned that it was ridiculous to believe that Egyptians attacked Nubia because Nubians are Egyptians. Perhaps he's right.

---

posted 15 December 2004 01:58 PM            

In his "book of the Dead" Budge, in informing us of the origins of certain "gods" from the Sudan, namely Buquen (?), he writes (and without commenting) the name with, as I showed above, both the "khast" and "Nu" determinatives.
This was done often, the labeling of southern locales with both an Egyptian and Sudanese possessive. Since, we will never find the answers in any current 'Egyptological' text, it's on us. So what do you think it means:

And remember that in pre-dynastic times, the Kememu buried their dead in a fetal position with the head always pointed towards the south.

posted 15 December 2004 02:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
And remember that in pre-dynastic times, the Kememu buried their dead in a fetal position with the head always pointed towards the south.

And when getting his bearings, a Kemi faced the south, and that's why the west is on the right hand...

---

What is the importance of having the west on the right hand side?

posted 15 December 2004 03:44 PM            

Leading up to dynastic times, the cultures from the Dal cataract and on
northward were very similar and there was no central political authority.
The A group are the first to implement a state structure with a political
head. The end of Naqada II sees the unification of the Two Lands and
a southern border -- the 1st cataract/Biga -- marking TaWy from TaSeti.
This southernmost nome is also named TaSeti because before the
dynastic era the land from Biga northward to Nag el Hasaya was
under A group authority.

The lands and peoples south of the 1st nome were not under the Kmt polity.
Their polity was Wawat. A cultural demarcation also began to distinguish
the two peoples. Kmt embraced writing while TaSeti and Kesh to the south
of it did not.

This explains the difference between TaSeti.nwt a nome of Kmt and
TaSeti,x3st a foreign country not a part of Kmt. The glyph x3st is the
determinative for a foreign country.

What determinatives appear after the names of east Mediterranean
settlements and cities from Canaan to Syria and from there further on
eastward to Assyria? Their determinatives will verify the usage of nwt,
clarifying if it was only used for Kmtyw controlled inhabitations.fs

Kmt may have felt TaSeti was rightfully theirs but the Nhsyw disagreed.
Kmt pushed its control ever southward over the centuries. TaNehesy
was zealous for its own independence. When the pharaohs caught on
to the idea of raising TaNehesy royalty up in the Kmt court the resistance
to Kmtyw suzereignty eventually faded away. The Nhsyw raised far from
home adapted more Kmt culture and introduced it to their subjects. An
exchange of neteru between the two also began to take place.

However, it is true that they shared a few of the neteru since terminal
A group/early dynastic times. So the New Kingdom era adaptations
are not a first. A history of the Amun/AmonAmen cult and priesthood
would be revealing. The root of this lies at a sacred spot near the 4th
cataract holy to Amun which linked kingship in Kmt with certain families
in Kesh so that we see throughout the history of Kmt there were rulers
who held the throne due to Nehesi wives, mothers, or descent.

posted 15 December 2004 04:18 PM            

Wally wrote:

"In his "book of the Dead" Budge, in informing us of the origins of certain "gods" from the Sudan, namely Buquen (?), he writes (and without commenting) the name with, as I showed above, both the "khast" and "Nu" determinatives.
This was done often, the labeling of southern locales with both an Egyptian and Sudanese possessive. Since, we will never find the answers in any current 'Egyptological' text, it's on us. So what do you think it means:

And remember that in pre-dynastic times, the Kememu buried their dead in a fetal position with the head always pointed towards the south.

And when getting his bearings, a Kemi faced the south, and that's why the west is on the right hand..."

Wally, this is very interesting. Given Egyptian beliefs about going to a better place in the afterlife, the burial could suggest that they're going back home when they die, which is south west.

posted 15 December 2004 04:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:

And remember that in pre-dynastic times, the Kememu buried their dead in a fetal position with the head always pointed towards the south.

And when getting his bearings, a Kemi faced the south, and that's why the west is on the right hand...

---

posted 15 December 2004 04:36 PM            

What do we mean when we all say that "A Group terminated" at the start of the Unification of Kemet?

Given that Ta Seti and Ta-Shemu (upper egypt) shared a common culture and interacted politically (with the pharoanic iconography 1st appearing in Ta Seti, and possible victories by Ta Seti kings in Ta-Shemu), isn't it just as accurate to say that this political-culture was extended into the delta by Narmer, in the 1st dynasty?

posted 15 December 2004 06:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
alTakruri, your post is very interesting, but can you clarify why you believe the land south of the first cataract was not governed by KMT? And where do you think TaSeti.nwt and TaSeti.x3st physically were? I'm a little confused by this because this would mean Egyptians recognized two different Land of the Bows.

As far as using two determinatives, that's an ineresting question and I can only speculate. I doubt that they felt these locations belonged to two separate entities. There's something going on that I don't quite understand yet.

---

please reference a map while reading this,
it will make things clearer.

OK I will use the less precise term Nubia.
The Nubians were the first to form a centralized
state with a king. They controlled the area
of Nubia and as almost as far north as Edfu.
All this region was then TaSeti.x3st.

When Egypt unified its kings took control as
far south as the 1st cataract. The area between
Edfu and the first cataract ised to belong to
TaSeti.x3st. Now, no longer under Nubian
control but in the hands of the Egyptians it
became the 1st nome of Egypt and was renamed
TaSeti.nwt.

If you have evidence that the Egyptians had
control over the region between Edfu and
Elephantine before the pre dynastic, or Wawat
up to the 2nd cataract before Snefru of dynasty 4 and Sesostris III of dynasty 12
and finally Ahmose of dynasty 18, Id be
interested. Because each time one of the
above mentioned pharaohs took TaSeti it
wasnt long before the Nubians retook
control of their country. It was only from
the time of Ahmose onward that Buhen in Nubia
became the southern border of Egypt.

When the Egyptians then moved further upriver
to Tombos there was fierce Nubian resistance
to overcome. This was when they hit on the
idea of taking the royals of Nubia for court
hostages.

Thutmose I extended Egyptian control up to
the 4th cataract. Thutmose III had a temple
built for deified Sesostris III at Semna and
dedicated it to two local Nubian deities.

Yet there was still some Nubian resistance to
Egyptian control that Thutmose IV and
Amenophis III had to take care of.

Only after major Egyptian architectural sites
go up in Nubia and the Nubians were won over
by a show of goodwill in trade, civics, and
inclusion in the royal circle did all of Nubia
truly become a willing annex of Egypt.

posted 15 December 2004 07:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

What determinatives appear after the names of east Mediterranean
settlements and cities from Canaan to Syria and from there further on
eastward to Assyria? Their determinatives will verify the usage of nwt,
clarifying if it was only used for Kmtyw controlled inhabitations.fs

---

a) I have never seen the Nu/Nwt determinative applied to any country or cities except for those in Egypt and the Sudan. The Asiatic countries are always listed as foreign/khast. It might be a good idea if someone can double-check me on this by referencing Budge's listings.

b) Important too, is that the dual labeling of Buhen (Buhen - khast/nwt) is from the 'Book of the Dead,' one of the oldest texts from the language (even though Budge uses the later 'Papyrus of Ani')

...

posted 15 December 2004 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
As far as using two determinatives, that's an interesting question and I can only speculate. I doubt that they felt these locations belonged to two separate entities. There's something going on that I don't quite understand yet.

---

I'm in total agreement with you on those points...

I'm puzzled as well, but am convinced that a seemingly simple distinction may very well prove to be a profound revelation...
We've got some smart people here, let's all figure this one out.

posted 15 December 2004 07:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
A few questions begged by the thread.....

What do we mean when we all say that "A Group terminated" at the start of the Unification of Kemet?

Given that Ta Seti and Ta-Shemu (upper egypt) shared a common culture and interacted politically (with the pharoanic iconography 1st appearing in Ta Seti, and possible victories by Ta Seti kings in Ta-Shemu), isn't it just as accurate to say that this political-culture was extended into the delta by Narmer, in the 1st dynasty?

Does the difference between Ta Seti[khast] and Ta Seti[nu] mirror differences in the language/culture of the inhabitants? ie - does Ta Seti[nu] reference Afrasan (mdw ntr) speakers, while the Ta Seti[khast] was Nilo Saharan?

---

Thought Posts:

American Journal of Physical Anthropology
1996 Oct;101(2):237-46.

Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt.

Prowse TL, Lovell NC.

Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

posted 15 December 2004 07:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
What is the importance of having the west on the right hand side?

---

Only to show the direction in which a person is facing. If you face north, then the east would be at your right hand. Making a long story short, to the Kememu,the Emnt or 'west' was at the right hand.
The Kememu's focus then, including the burial procedures, was oriented towards the south...

posted 15 December 2004 09:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
alTakruri,what about Buhen? Buhen was an Egyptian town established by Khasekhemwy around the 2nd dyansty. The town was located around the second cataract. The know defunt B-group Nubian occupied this town alongside the dynastic Egyptians.

---

I thought Kasekhem overcame the remnant of independent Nubians still to
the south of El Kom el Ahmer around Edfu when he reunited the Two Lands?
Does his stela with him kneeling on personified TaSeti really mention Buhen?

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/egypt/Khaskhm-CairoJE33895.jpg

Yes Buhen was an early dynastic site in Nubia not too far north
of Djebel Sheikh Sulimon the other early dynastic site near the
2nd cataract. They were outposts far from home and fell under
Nubian scrutiny except when Nubian population was sparse as
in the interval between terminal A group and C group times.

By the Old Kingdom 4th dynasty, Snefru had to re establish Egyptian
hegemony at Buhen. The extent of Nubian resistance is shown in his
claim of taking 7,0000 prisoners. Later in the 5th dynasty Buhen was
producing copper. TaSeti no longer had the resources to resist until
the end of the 6th dynasty and the rise of the C group later during the
1st Intermediate period.

In the Middle Kingdom Egypt was firm about control over Wawat. After
soundly defeating the Nhsyw the Senwosrets found it necessary to
build a string of fortresses. These were at Buhen, Kor, Dorginarti,
Mirgissa, Dabenarti, Askut, Shalfak, Uronarti, Kumma, and Semna.
They were to prevent passage of any Nhsw downriver including shipping,
caravan, or pastoral transhumants. Passage was only to br granted to
those assured not to confront Kmtw authority.

You dont have to build forts or deny clear passage except to a select
few for people of your own country. It would only be in New Kingdom
times that all Nubia was a political annex of Egypt. Kesh retained its
distinction. NHSW were not RT RMT.

posted 15 December 2004 09:52 PM            

Lower Nubia[Wawat] was not as populated as around the 3rd and fourth cataract. The area of Lower Nubia was very infertile,and could not sustain large populations.

The once proposed B-Group pottery found at Buhen has bee questioned by most archaeologist,but people like Resiner and Emery first proposed it.

posted 15 December 2004 09:54 PM            

quote:

---

NHSW were not RT RMT.

---

posted 15 December 2004 11:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]NHSW were not RT RMT.

---

I would prefer to use precise terms as I did in my first post to this thread
but someone became confused and as youve noticed mostly all the
contributors are using Nubian without qualification of place or time as if
theres some amorphous mass in reality called Nubian before the Roman
era.

If you have anything to contribute about the people and polities above and
below the 1st cataract please do so. The subject is Ancient Egypts Southern
Borders not Whats al~Takruri Doing. Instead of attacking me examine and
attack the points in my post as befits civil discussion where everyones a
winner sharing the knowledge instead of a debate where interest groups
seek to overcome.

Its no fallacy that despite the characteristics that delineate Tasian from
Badarian from Naqada I from Naqada II from Naqada III from pre dynastic
from early dynastic and Khartoum variant from Shamarkian from Abkan from
classic A from terminal A from C, theres a continuity through time and a similarity
across distance showing the commonality of culture from the Dal cataract on downriver.

In the early dynastic and terminal A group time period a distinction begins
to develop distinguishing Kmtyw from Nhsyw as evident in the founding of
states with powerful central rulership by both and the implementation of writing
by the Kmtyw only.

To say this is untrue is you creating another Nubian fallacy.

I dont start out by claiming as fact that Egypts southern border was always
above the 6th cataract and then only approve the documents and evidence
that would suggest such a thing.

I take a fresh look at documents and evidence and draw conclusions from them.

As such, it appears the southern border of the state of Egypt was at
Nag el Hasaya in the pre dynastic
Kor Bahan in the early dynastic.
The nome system never went further south than Kor Bahan
and as far as I know Egypts borders were defined by her nomes.
Before the early dynastic the land between Nag el Hasaya and Kor
Bahan belonged to the TaSeti polity. This is why Egypt when taking
over this territory retained the name TaSeti for it as the 1st nome of
Egypt.

Brcause of a desire to assure free flow of favorable trade Egypt built
outposts in Wawat. That not being enough Egypt annexed more and
more land to the south. The southern annex encompasses more and
more of TaNehesy over the centuries with the border solidly at
Buhen in the 12th dynasty
4th catarct in the 18th dynasty.

When the pharaohs of Kesh finally rule Egypt that state including its
northen and souther annexes will stretch from Meggido in Canaan
to beyond Meroe .

If any of this is wrong just point out where the mistakes are and fill in
any omissions, dont make it into a personal matter with me as some
dreaded bogeyman.

<Well I do like to boogey but thats a whole nuther smoke.>.

posted 15 December 2004 11:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
If you have evidence that the Egyptians had control over the region between Edfu and
Elephantine before the pre dynastic, or Wawat
up to the 2nd cataract before Snefru of dynasty 4 and Sesostris III of dynasty 12
and finally Ahmose of dynasty 18, Id be
interested.

---

The earliest I can say with any kind of certainty is that Egypt controlled lands beyond the 1st cataract was the 6th Dynasty. This info comes from Gadalla's Exiled Egyptians. I know his work should be taken with a grain of salt but I have no reason not to trust him on this one. He mentioned records that showed this to be an Egyptian colony around the time of the 6th Dynasty. So this doesn't necessarily conflict with what you're saying.

One thing I'm having a problem with is the idea of the real Nubia (the land of gold), not being under the control of Egyptians. This area was always scarcely populated due to the lack of a water source until Ramses II found and underground stream there (this info comes from the discover channels web site). For this reason, I'm not sure we can say there was ever a time that the land of gold didn't belong to Egypt. It's just that there were never many people living there.

I'm a little confused at this point about the land south of the first cataract. The Egyptians made no secret of where they came from, and I think that most of us on this topic agree that Egyptian civilization is of "Nubian" origin.

So Lower Nubia is a part of Egypt before Lower Egypt is a part of Egypt. Egyptians bury their dead facing southwest, at least hinting that the heaven lies to the southwest. They put their determinant for a city on cities that are in what we consider Nubia.

How is it that we can consider Nubia to be a separate civilization, but Lower Egypt to be a part of Egypt? The real question is how did the Egyptains see it? Egyptologists love reminding us that Egypt had conflicts with it's southern neighbors, but they rarely do us the service of naming these Nubians. I assume they're usually talking about Kush. But to my knowledge, Kushites don't show up until long after unification of Upper and Lower Egypt.

posted 16 December 2004 12:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

I would prefer to use precise terms as I did in my first post to this thread
but someone became confused and as youve noticed mostly all the
contributors are using Nubian without qualification of place or time as if
theres some amorphous mass in reality called Nubian before the Roman
era.

---

posted 16 December 2004 12:05 AM            

quote:

---

Instead of attacking me examine and
attack the points in my post as befits civil discussion where everyones a
winner sharing the knowledge instead of a debate where interest groups
seek to overcome.

---

posted 16 December 2004 12:13 AM            

quote:

---

Its no fallacy that despite the characteristics that delineate Tasian from
Badarian from Naqada I from Naqada II from Naqada III from pre dynastic
from early dynastic and Khartoum variant from Shamarkian from Abkan from
classic A from terminal A from C, theres a continuity through time and a similarity
across distance showing the commonality of culture from the Dal cataract on downriver

---

posted 16 December 2004 12:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Instead of attacking me examine and
attack the points in my post as befits civil discussion where everyones a
winner sharing the knowledge instead of a debate where interest groups
seek to overcome.

---

posted 16 December 2004 12:31 AM            

quote:

---

I'm a little confused at this point about the land south of the first cataract. The Egyptians made no secret of where they came from, and I think that most of us on this topic agree that Egyptian civilization is of "Nubian" origin

---

posted 16 December 2004 12:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
I would prefer to use precise terms as I did in my first post to this thread
but someone became confused and as youve noticed mostly all the
contributors are using Nubian without qualification of place or time as if
theres some amorphous mass in reality called Nubian before the Roman
era...

...I dont start out by claiming as fact that Egypts southern border was always
above the 6th cataract and then only approve the documents and evidence
that would suggest such a thing.

I take a fresh look at documents and evidence and draw conclusions from them.

As such, it appears the southern border of the state of Egypt was at
Nag el Hasaya in the pre dynastic
Kor Bahan in the early dynastic.
The nome system never went further south than Kor Bahan
and as far as I know Egypts borders were defined by her nomes.
Before the early dynastic the land between Nag el Hasaya and Kor
Bahan belonged to the TaSeti polity. This is why Egypt when taking
over this territory retained the name TaSeti for it as the 1st nome of
Egypt.

Brcause of a desire to assure free flow of favorable trade Egypt built
outposts in Wawat. That not being enough Egypt annexed more and
more land to the south. The southern annex encompasses more and
more of TaNehesy over the centuries with the border solidly at
Buhen in the 12th dynasty
4th catarct in the 18th dynasty.

When the pharaohs of Kesh finally rule Egypt that state including its
northen and souther annexes will stretch from Meggido in Canaan
to beyond Meroe .

---

posted 16 December 2004 12:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]. . . theres a continuity through time and a similarity
across distance showing the commonality of culture from the Dal cataract on downriver

---

Writing.

This one vital element of culture is one of
the markings of the split between TaWy and
TaNehesy.

Since TaNehesy eschewed writing for many a
century after TaWy embraced it, how can we know
for sure what language the A group spoke versus what language the C group spoke?

Kom Ombos was the capital of the Egyptian
nome TaSeti.nwt. The written records from
the various towns and cities of TaSeti.nwt
use the mdw ntr. Their language was some
dialect of AEL.

A few days ago there was a post citing an AE
document talking about the differences in
dialect in Kmt. No doubt TaSeti.nwt dialect
was full of infusions from the language of
lower TaSeti.x3st.

It would take years of specialized study but
if the written language at all mirrors the
spoken tongue a comparison of documents from
TaSeti.nwt and Kmtyw settlements in Wawat may
have elements of A group and C group language
in them. Attention to the words involving the
most popular trade items would be one place
that could yield clues.

posted 16 December 2004 01:03 AM            

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]. . . theres a continuity through time and a similarity
across distance showing the commonality of culture from the Dal cataract on downriver

---

quote:

---

Writing.

This one vital element of culture is one of
the markings of the split between TaWy and
TaNehesy.

Since TaNehesy eschewed writing for many a
century after TaWy embraced it, how can we know
for sure what language the A group spoke versus what language the C group spoke?

---

Williams (1987) and Trigger (1980) have failed to discuss the entire inscription on the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman relief. These scholars ignore the Proto-Saharan inscription, and describe only, the relief from left to right as follows: a serekh topped by a falcon looking over a victorious battlefield, sacred bark and a bound prisoner- Winters, ref to: Williams and Diop

posted 16 December 2004 02:00 AM            

I take that your view is even though the A
group were in heavy concentration in the
territory between the 1st and 2nd cataracts
south of Kmt that they were not in TaNehesy?

I also take it your view is that they left literature. What name for themselves did
they write down?

posted 16 December 2004 07:16 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol
I take that your view is even though the A
group were in heavy concentration in the
territory between the 1st and 2nd cataracts
south of Kmt that they were not in TaNehesy?

---

If I were forced based on existing evidence to use terms to describe group A. I would call them the Khentu of Ta Khent. Proto Kemetic political constructs appear to be centered here during this predynastic era 200-600 years before Narmer. Beginning with Narmer's conquests the capital of Kemet proper moves all the way down to Memphis. At this point Kememtic culture AND PEOPLE have been moving continually down the Nile for the better part of 1000 years.

quote:

---

I also take it your view is that they left literature.

---

quote:

---

What name for themselves did they write down?

---

ps - I think Diop's point about the animal iconography in mdw ntr showing creatures not found in "tawy" but found in "ta seti" is profound.

posted 16 December 2004 12:58 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Posts:

American Journal of Physical Anthropology
1996 Oct;101(2):237-46.

Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt.

Prowse TL, Lovell NC.

Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighbouring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighbouring populations in southern Egypt

---

In laymen's english -> the rulers of predynastic upper egypt (Ta Shemu) most closely resemble the general population in (Ta Seti) Nubia, even more so than they resembled the local population. Endogamous affinities go beyound the merely ethnic to the point of suggesting homogenous "inbred" familial affinities.

posted 16 December 2004 01:57 PM            

quote:

---

Kem-Au wrote:
Perhaps an answer to this question would help us. Do Egyptians recognize two different Ta-Seti's at the same time, or could it be the same Ta-Seti, but controlled by different groups at different times?

---

I think that I may have caused some un-necessary confusion by listing:
Ta Set (Nwt) 1051b - district in Upper Egypt
Ta Sti (Khast) 1051b - "Land of the Bow" ie, Nubia

These are two separate and distinct places, one is Ta Set and the other is Ta Sti (Sti being the word for bow)

I think we should remain focused on the Kemetian ideology;
what we can establish for certain is that if the determinative 'Nwt' is placed after a locality, then the Ancient Egyptians considered that to be an Egyptian settlement.
This was, I think, ol' Breasted's argument when he said that the Ancient Egyptians considered the inhabitants of Punt to be Egyptians (ie, ethnically/racially)since they didn't use the 'khast' symbol(but Budge writes the names for Punt and uses the 'khast' determinative). The point, however, is that Breasted knew the significance of the labels and what they meant exactly...

posted 16 December 2004 02:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
I think that I may have caused some un-necessary confusion by listing:
Ta Set (Nwt) 1051b - district in Upper Egypt
Ta Sti (Khast) 1051b - "Land of the Bow" ie, Nubia

These are two separate and distinct places, one is Ta Set and the other is Ta Sti (Sti being the word for bow)

I think we should remain focused on the Kemetian ideology;
what we can establish for certain is that if the determinative 'Nwt' is placed after a locality, then the Ancient Egyptians considered that to be an Egyptian settlement.
This was, I think, ol' Breasted's argument when he said that the Ancient Egyptians considered the inhabitants of Punt to be Egyptians (ie, ethnically/racially)since they didn't use the 'khast' symbol(but Budge writes the names for Punt and uses the 'khast' determinative). The point, however, is that Breasted knew the significance of the labels and what they meant exactly...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 16 December 2004).]

---

No, your post wasn't the source of confusion. There's alot of things going on in this post (all good). I do tend to go back and forth a little trying to make sense of all the data.

posted 16 December 2004 03:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
. . .
If I were forced based on existing evidence to use terms to describe group A. I would call them the Khentu of Ta Khent.
. . .
Literature, no. Heiroglyphic writing, yes.
. . .
Per Bruce Williams The term Ta-Seti means Land of the Bow in the Cushitic/Nubian language.
. . .

---

Is there contemporary primary documentation
for Khentu and TaKhent or are these terms
ones as late in time as you propose TaNehesy,
TaWy and Kmt to be?

I thought it was established in another thread that the root NHS means
south. If we can accept that then TaNehesy is Land of the Southerners.
The A group are in TaNehesy, the Land of the Southerners.

Other populations upriver from them are also in TaNehesy hence the generic
regional term applicable to any state or ethny south of TaShemau.

Primary documents contemporary with the A group give the name of their
state. As far as we now know it was the first polity of royal status on the Nile.
The self given name of the A group state was TaSeti.

These documents are
the Siali storage cache seal
the Djebel Sheikh Suleiman graffito

Where does Williams himself say TaSeti is a word in a language of the
Cushitic Afrasan family instead of a word in other Afrsan familes like
AEL or TaMazight?

posted 16 December 2004 03:33 PM            

". . . Ta Seti, the most ancient name for Nubia in written documents."

Bruce Williams (contr
Ivan Van Sertima (ed
Nile Valley Civilizations
Journal of African Civilizations Ltd., Inc. 1985
pp. 37 & 44

Archaeology Magazine 33.5 198

posted 16 December 2004 05:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Do you guys have any idea why Egyptians would use two determinants for a city name in Ta-Seti?

---

And the second question:
Why did the Kemetian designate regions in the heart of Sudan, including, Meroe, as being an Egyptian settlement (Nwt)???

PS: There's an exhaustive geographical listing at the end of vol2 of Budge's dictionary...

posted 16 December 2004 05:24 PM            

quote:

---

Is there contemporary primary documentation
for Khentu and TaKhent or are these terms
ones as late in time

---

I certainly wouldn't expect an A Group indiginous self-reference as the 'founders' (of Egypt).

posted 16 December 2004 09:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]
>> Is there contemporary primary documentation
for Khentu and TaKhent or are these terms
ones as late in time <<

Sorry, I considered after writing this that it might be misunderstood. My point about the A Group is that they may be the Khenu Hon Nefer: founders of the excellent order, which Budge defines as tribes of the Southern Sudan.

I certainly wouldn't expect an A Group indiginous self-reference as the 'founders' (of Egypt).

To the point: If these peoples are the founders of km.t and if as you say, the Nehesi describes a people who are not of kmt. then...it would be innaccurate to refer to these peoples as nehesi, no?

---

This logic was unknown to the recorder who left us a primary
contemporary document so that we know without a doubt the
terminal A group opponents of Snefru were of TaNehasyw.

Ah, those first hand documents. Nothing like them for clarity.

And my gosh, the southern Sudan is even deeper in TaNehesy
than is the 2nd cataract which is in northern Sudan. The early A
group sites are not as far south as are the classic and terminal A
group sites.

Looks like they fanned out from a southern Egypt/northern Sudan
base to go both northward to lower southern Egypt and southward
to lower southern Sudan.

I think the Khartoum variant are the ones who could be the Khenu
Hon Nefer especially if such an order is supposed to be from the
tribes of southern Sudan.

I see some are getting a lil turbed with this discussion. Should we
take it to a new thread and transplant the posts on origins and
development of Nile Valley civ from here to there or let it rest for now?

posted 16 December 2004 09:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Do you guys have any idea why Egyptians would use two determinants for a city name in Ta-Seti?

---

quote:

---

Thank you, Kem-Au. That is what the issue is. There's too much 'besides the point' conversation here.

And the second question:
Why did the Kemetian designate regions in the heart of Sudan, including, Meroe, as being an Egyptian settlement (Nwt)???

PS: There's an exhaustive geographical listing at the end of vol2 of Budge's dictionary...

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 16 December 2004).]

---

Assuming you mean cases where a city in TaNehesy has the double
determinative nwt.x3st, we need to find the texts that these dictionary
entries are derived from. Reading the words in their proper context
should give us plenty of good clues that will hold more weight than
logical speculation.

posted 17 December 2004 01:48 AM            

Just a few questions:

* If Group A is viewed as having a 'terminal' point, then how can that be incorporated into and argument for continuity between A and C. Isn't termination the opposite of continuation?
In fact, doesn't the entire conception of Group A,B,C demonstrate by definition a 'lack' of continuity?

* You say that we know 'for certain' Sneferu's compaign in te seti was against A Group? This has me confused, since the terminal point of A Group is said to be contemporary with Narmer's unification of Kemet:

The Terminal A-Group was coexistent with Egypt's unification stage (end of Gerzian) and the initial part of the First Dynasty. Cultural and economic exchange along the Nubian part of the Nile valley was intensified during this period of prosperity and population growth. The most affluent area was located in the southernmost part of Lower Nubia, displaying an impressive number of rich cemeteries with a strong social presence of women in both the village cemeteries and in many of the elite cemeteries. An advanced chiefdom that controlled at least the southern part of Lower Nubia may have been formed during the Terminal A-Group, perhaps the result of a consolidation process parallel to that of Egypt. The center was at Qustul near the present Sudanese- Egyptian border, where the Chicago Oriental Institute has excavated an elite cemetery with funerary offerings of outstanding quality. The complete breakdown of the A-Group culture came abruptly when the Egyptian kings of the First Dynasty took full control of the southern trade and the flow of raw materials. The population may have become nomadic, leaving few material remains behind. Between the reign of Djer of the First Dynasty (c.2900 BC) and the Fifth Dynasty (c.2374 BC) there are very few traces of indigenous Nubian settlements or graves. - http://www.numibia.net/nubia/a-group.htm ?

* Your definition of TaNehesu as being derived from Nsu -> southerners, seems plausible, but begs the question as to whether all references to the Nsu can be taken as references to the same people, and throughout time.

Example would be Diop's: we also understand better now why the Egyptian term designating royalty etymologically means: (the man) who comes from the South= nsw< n y swt = who belongs to the South= who is a native of the South= the King of Lower Egypt, and has never meant just King, in other words king of Lower and Upper Egypt, King of all Egypt".

According to your logic, this refers to the Nehesi, no?

If so, how can we possibly justify the notion that Nehesi is not a part of the polity that is Km.t. (the ruling class is not a part of the Nation?)

If not, we are left with the idea that Southerner's is not a blanket term for any one group of people. The Khentu Hon Nefer are southerners....so are the Nehesi...I have yet to see evidence that this refers to the same ethnic entity.

Wally: maybe it's just me, but i see this question of the different names used for ta khent, ta seti, ta nehasi, as related to the khast/niwt dichotomy. ie - same issue.

posted 17 December 2004 03:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
altakuri, on Group A Nubia:

Just a few questions:

* If Group A is viewed as having a 'terminal' point, then how can that be incorporated into and argument for continuity between A and C. Isn't termination the opposite of continuation?
In fact, doesn't the entire conception of Group A,B,C demonstrate by definition a 'lack' of continuity?

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 December 2004).]

---

Dont know why youre asking me this since I
never made any such point. Being the logician
that you are, you know as far as my ongoing
presentation is concerned the raising of that
issue could be considered a logical fallacy.

All things come to an end. A group can be
divided into the three periods early, classic, and terminal. Was there a B group?
I think thats been discounted. Im sure youre
familiar with the works that connect A to C.
Obviously you dont accept their argument. Good, thats what the free exchange of ideas is
all about. Free thought and new hypothesis to
be tested.

Any point can be countered and the one doing
the countering always knows that their view
us the best. So I know you will not accept the following analogy to your logic on continuity.

* If the Old Kingdom is viewed as having a 'terminal' point, then how can that be incorporated into and argument for continuity between Old and New Kingdom. Isn't termination the opposite of continuation?
In fact, doesn't the entire conception of Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom demonstrate by definition a 'lack' of continuity?

The argument is just based on word meanings.
To make your case bring on the archaeological
evidence. The set of scholars who disconnect
A from C do it based on interpretation of
archeaological data not on the meaning of the
words terminal and continuity.

Now what were the points I really made in my
earlier posts and will you answer the challenges
I made or will you dodge them by broaching
something else I never discussed?

Knowing there is no scholarly agreement on every matter,

I would really rather discuss history
for the benefit of sharing and learning
more of what I dont know so that everyones
a winner, rather than debate to no end
or reason at all other than to make one
a winner and the other a loser of the
debate.

posted 17 December 2004 03:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
altakuri, on Group A Nubia:

Just a few questions:

* You say that we know 'for certain' Sneferu's compaign in te seti was against A Group? This has me confused, since the terminal point of A Group is said to be contemporary with Narmer's unification of Kemet:

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 December 2004).]

---

And as well read and with many resources you
have I know you have come across the idea that
it was Snefrus drastic depopulation campaign
that caused the A group to go into decline
and probable retreat further south for a
more humbler indescript existance.

Then others think the impoverished A group
held on to a rag tag existance ever spiraling
deeper into decline through to the end of the
Old Kingdom era.

posted 17 December 2004 04:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
altakuri, on Group A Nubia:

Just a few questions:

* You say that we know 'for certain' Sneferu's compaign in te seti was against A Group? This has me confused, since the terminal point of A Group is said to be contemporary with Narmer's unification of Kemet:

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 December 2004).]

---

Didnt you imply that Narmer was an A group king?

>> If I were forced based on existing evidence to use terms to describe group A. I would call them the Khentu of Ta Khent. Proto Kemetic political constructs appear to be centered here during this predynastic era 200-600 years before Narmer. Beginning with Narmer's conquests the capital of Kemet proper moves all the way down to Memphis. At this point Kememtic culture AND PEOPLE have been moving continually down the Nile for the better part of 1000 years. <<

You also posited the identity of TaSeti as
TaNehesy yet argue with me that the A group
of TaSeti are not in TaNehesy. What gives?
Are you putting me to some test? Is this my
hazing for inclusion in a frat Im not even
pledging?

>> This is a key point, imho.
Ta Seti, land of the bow is not only Ta Nehesi, land of the barbarian(?), but also Ta Khent, land of the beginning, of the ancestors, of the Khentu hon nefer, the founders. <<

Now this whole debate is sterile but Im not
sitting still while being made to look like
I dont know from African history or that there isnt valid scholarship for what Ive
presented and that simple logic is enough
to disprove it.

posted 17 December 2004 04:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
altakuri, on Group A Nubia:

Just a few questions:

* Your definition of TaNehesu as being derived from Nsu -> southerners, seems plausible, but begs the question as to whether all references to the Nsu can be taken as references to the same people, and throughout time.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 December 2004).]

---

Well its not my definition.

Desite the fact that you said TaSeti, TaNehesy, and TaKhent were all
the same, I will go into this one anyway.

If TaNehesey is the Land of Southerners I see no implication in
that term that they are all the same people. In fact in other posts
I have given five or six names of various states or ethnies in TaNehesy.

You know the logical fallacy used by debaters where words are
put in an opponents mouth, Thats what Im feelin here and in a lot
of this ongoing challenge.

I didnt hyothesize Nehesy as southerner. In the Nail In The Coffin
thread page 4 I asked for meanings of the AEL root NHS and was told

>> Looks like we're stuck with Nubia denoting all lands south of Egypt...

nahas in Wolof means "worthless"
nahas in Arabic means "copper"
nahas is a province in south-western Sudan <<

Then I asked for the recise dictionary entry. I accepted the given
answer and have used it since then. I didnt have a clue until Wally taught me

>> In *Budge's dictionary, we have the following Kemetian terms for these people(s):
p344a
Nahs - singular
Nah(n)su - plural- written with the nsu glyph for 'southern'
( nahh - eternal
( nahi - to wink

p386a
Nehsi
Neh(n)su
Nehsyu
( nheh - eternal
Nehsu - Sudani tribes in the Tuat, the results of the masturbation of Ra
Nehsyu hotepu - "Friendlies" in the Sudan, Sudani police <<

So now why have you waited till now and chosen me to challenge
this when even you have equated TaNehesy with TaSeti and TaKhent?

posted 17 December 2004 05:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
altakuri, on Group A Nubia:

Just a few questions:

If so, how can we possibly justify the notion that Nehesi is not a part of the polity that is Km.t. (the ruling class is not a part of the Nation?)

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 December 2004).]

---

This is how we do it. We examine the records left by the politicos
of KM.t. When they set up the nomes TaNehesy
was not included hence
it was outside of the polity of TaWy.

And what do you mean by your use of Nehesi without Ta? Are you switching
back and forth from land to people as covenient for your argument
instead of sticking to precision? Every Nehesi was not an A group
member. Nor did every Nehesi have royal rights. That was limited to
certain families. Probably the ones of Qustul nobility who themselves
probably had to trace their family claims upriver to most sacred
Djebel Barkal with its holy Ipet Sut.

posted 17 December 2004 08:19 AM            

quote:

---

And what do you mean by your use of Nehesi without Ta? Are you switching
back and forth from land to people as covenient for your argument

---

i have assumed all along that you are saying that there is an ethnic group called nehesu, that comes from the land you call ta nehasy, and that encompases the A Group "Nubians" among other things? so, i am unsure of why you 'think' i am switching your 'argument'.

here's a summary of my view having listened with respect to your presentation:

i am not convinced that their exists an ethnic group called Nehesi that describes both the Southern 'barbarian' conotation on the one hand, and the Southern 'founder' conotation on the other.

i am not convinced that nehasi = nsu suten = khentu = medijay = irjet = kennus = kush and so on.

yes, they all come from the ta seti, ta khent, ta nehasy, but i think it is a bit contrived to refer to them ALL indiscriminently as setu, khentu, nehasu.
These peoples are not from the same era, do not speak the same language, or even language class, do not have the same culture, are not regarded as the same by the kemetians in the mdw ntr.

note: your discource is a bit subtle, so i don't know if you are exactly saying otherwise. i am really not sure why you are hung up on a somewhat overreaching imho use of the term ta nehasi. i've seldom ever heard this term outside of this conversation.

posted 17 December 2004 08:32 AM            

quote:

---

Didnt you imply that Narmer was an A group king?

---

Thus we have here the symbols of Egyptian kingship, complete with crown, flail and religious symbolism existing in Lower Nubia some 300 years before the first reputed king in Egyptian history, Narmer, takes the throne. Williams argues that this is evidence of three separate kingdoms existing in the Nile Valley in pre-dynastic times: Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia, with Lower Nubia being the oldest.

At an A-Group storage cache at Siali, which lies north of Qutsul, is more proof of royalty. On a portion of a seal from this find is a man saluting a bow and a palace façade with the Horus-falcon. Williams states, “the obvious interpretation is that the man is saluting the name for Nubia - Ta-Seti, or 'Land of the Bow.'” This indicates that Ta-Seti was indeed an established kingship and state.

Other evidence pointed out by Williams show Ta-Seti kings engaged in military campaigns in Upper Egypt and Libya. Williams states the following in regards to this:

“the fallen enemy is labeled Ta-Shemau or Upper Egypt. Although the second group remaining on this bowl is fainter than the first, it can be seen that 'the enemy' has fallen on his back rather than forward. The long flat sign (land) extends from the enemy's knee and the unimpeded vertical identifying sign appears to make a kind of question above - this, in all probability, is the label Ta-Tjemeh or Libya”.
Thus archaeological evidence denotes a well-defined culture some 300 years before Egypt's first dynasty. What is more, they illustrate definitive cultural icons the Horus-falcon, the conical white crown of Upper Egypt - which will appear in Egypt beginning in its formative dynasties. These discoveries have led Dr. Williams to propose that, "the idea of a pharaoh may have come down the Nile from Nubia to Egypt that would make Nubian civilization the ancestor of Egypt's at least in one critical aspect".

Thus Qutsul in Nubia could very well be the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty and represents the world's oldest monarchy.
http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/NUB/NUBX/NUBX_brochure.html

posted 17 December 2004 08:41 AM            

quote:

---

TaNehesey is the Land of Southerners I see no implication in
that term that they are all the same people.

---