quote:...hence, the game towards continued confusion and misleading, by retaining terms which the author clearly understands to be erroneous for reasons stated. In that "lithic" underlies stone tooling techniques of the given culture in association with the observed changes in socio-economic progression, clearly three phases of lithic tooling or techniques are observed here, and hence, the resort to the term "Meso-lithic". However, as the author acknowledges, the socio-economic orientation of this culture speaks more of a Neolithic character. How about using a term like "proto-Neolithic", if not inclined to call it "Neolithic"?
However, it should be clear that this should not be confused with the European Mesolithic and its cultural, technological and economic affiliations.
It should be considered instead as a phase that sits between Egyptian/Sudanese Palaeolithic and Neolithic phases “In the game of definitions, the presence of pottery – especially in the African context – hardly ties in with the conventional idea of the Mesolithic . . . . For convenience, however, we retain . . . the term ‘Khartoum Mesolithic’ simply because it is now enshrined in the literature (while acknowledging, nevertheless, its trued Neolithicizing nature)” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000, p.93).
quote:^ Good idea Supercar.
How about using a term like "proto-Neolithic", if not inclined to call it "Neolithic"?
quote:Correct. Another lie told about this implies that Kush = Nubia.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Nubia extends both north and south across the border of Egypt/Sudan.
The territory Nubia covers was just a small part of Kush.
quote:
Originally posted by yazid904:
Keeping in mind genotyping as a litmus, we have to consider that without barriers like mountains, rivers, forest, jungle, etc. much of those areas are contiguous, without the boundaries that are delineated today.
To use the descriptive "Egyptian Nubia" is to deny Nubia as a whole and act as though they are a separate area/people when in antiquity they were not! Perhaps with the defeat of the native dynasties and the birth of Islam, the separation may have become permanaent, as we have been programmed to believe. Well, some of us.
quote:
There is no need to torture geographical reality in order to drive Blacks south into some imaginary bantu-stan called sub-sahara
quote:
Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Naqada city with the Temple of Seth, What ancient name would this fall under?
quote:Kenndo I hope you really get the point, if not here is one more pointer.
I see now and it was my point long ago but i guess it got lost on the way,lower nubia is really nubia proper and is really located in northern africa for while the rest(upper/and southern nubia) kush,alwa,sennar etc,is really located in eastern africa since modern sudan is really mostly or a east african state that is not sub-saharan but linked to it.
quote:Correct. In fact there is no understanding the history of the founding of the new Kingdom at all, when saddled with a "Egypt vs. Nubia" context.
Kemet went to war against the Hyksos and Nubia,that comment might sound true but it is misleading and here is why, Kemet didnot go to war with Nubia.
quote:I have to Disagree with you on this one about the kerma group and later kushites.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
rasol quote:
_____________________________________________________________
On the one hand their enemies are said to include "nubians:" Kushites, on the other their allies are said to include "nubians": Medijay.
___________________________________________________________
Rasol you have brought up an important point, that being that both Kushites and Medijay lived in Nubia. Although this would appear contradictory , given the obvious differences they showed in terms of loyalty to the Egyptians or the Hyksos, it is easy explained by the origin of the two groups: Kushite and Medijay.
The Armana Letters make it clear that the Medijay belonged to the Meluhha/Punt confederation. As many people have noted some Egyptian records maintain that Punt was the original homeland for some Egyptians.
Many Kushites on the otherhand, belonged to the Tehenu group , which correspond, according to some researchers to the C-Group people. Given the fact that the Kushites included many Tehenu, it was only natural that they may have been more favorable to the Hyksos, than the Egyptians, since some members of this group may have been descendants of Tehenu people.
As a result, when you bring up the multi-ethnic aspects of the political scene during this period you are highlighting the fact that the character of African politics at this time were complicated to say the least.
quote:Correct. And there is no reason to believe that politics were over-determined by ethnic factors.
As a result, when you bring up the multi-ethnic aspects of the political scene during this period you are highlighting the fact that the character of African politics at this time were complicated to say the least.
quote:Wally has written of the attempt to discourage understanding of the matrilineal legitimist nature of Km.t society so as to allow free speculation regarding the identity of Kemetic royalty.
The situation can be compared to a family inheritance validated by matrilineal succession. Brothers fight over the inheritance
of mother.
Each manages to get some piece of it. Both have
designs to obtain all of it. Both recognize their right to it stems from the mother they have in common. One brother lives in proximity of strangers who themselves covet the inheritance.
And when the stranger succeeds in stealing it from the brother living next door to them, then by intrigue or by violence the brother more distant from the intruding stranger comes along
to assure the inheritance remains within the family, restoring the ancient family values as well.
quote:since we know that the egyptians called lower nubia and yam ta-seti we must make it clear on this point,The a-group kingdom in lower nubia never had control south of the second cataract since pre-kerma or yam was a independent kingdom in upper nubia and was older than the a-group but the a-group had control of southern egypt at one time.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
For example's sake for the time being let's start with
events around 3500 BCE or so. We'll do a fuller temporal
spatial outline later.
A lot of the confusion would subside once recognition of Kesh
as beginning where limestone ends and sandstone begins to be
the deciding rock base along the Lower Nile Valley (Gebel el
Silsila, Nag el Hasaya) and continuing to at least the junctures
of the White Nile and the Blue Nile is accepted as fact. At that
point we can begin to break down the regions and peoples in this
vast area.
Before the Egyptians learned the word Kesh they used their own
word NHHSW (southerners) to designate all the variety of folk
south of them. We find this word illustrated by a generalized
picture painting in the Book of Gates. This shows the RT RMT
themselves noticed a political spatial "dichotomy" but not a
biological lineal difference between NHHSW and RT RMT. Otherwise
there'd only one designation HPYW ("Nilers") in that religious text.
We know they saw no "racial" difference because we have one
depiction of a scene in the Book of Gates where RT RMT and
NHHSW are depicted exactly the same. And we have other art
pieces not of a religious nature were Kmtyw have skin tones
ranging from red-brown to black and Keshli have skin tones
ranging from red-brown to black.
Kenset (TaSeti, Wawat) was south Egypt and south of Egypt. The
unifiers of the Two Lands (TaWY) were from TaSeti.x3st which
at the time extended northward to just south of what would be
Edfu. Thus the first nome of Egypt was TaSeti.nwt. But TaSeti.x3st
was more extensive than just TaSeti.nwt. It also included Wawat
and part if not all of Yam.
As there are always rival factions seeking authority over land,
such factions disputed TaSeti.nwt and adjacent regions of Wawat
being under suzereignity of the relatively newly unified Two Lands.
That their kinsmen accomplished the unification played no role in
the power struggle. The old sovereignty of TaSeti.x3st and the new
polity of TaWy struggled against each other for hegemony over
TaSeti.nwt which spilled over into and became a struggle over
northern Wawat as well. In time it became a struggle over what
was once all the lands that had the Khartoum Late Stone Age
cultural complex.
The sepatw (nomes) TaSeti and Heru's Throne (commemorating
the conquering Shemsu Hor?) were topographically part of Kesh.
The Shemsu Hor did not unify the Two Lands in the name of
TaSeti.x3st. They did it in their own name to carve out
their own kingdom. The rulership of TaSeti.x3st never
accepted that cleavage and all throughout the written
historic period of Lower Nile Valley history retained
their claim on the throne of TaWy and TaWy recognized
the primacy of that claim because no one legitimately
held that throne unless they were descended from or
married to a princess/queen of known and verifiable
southern ancestry.
The TaWy rulership felt the whole Nile Valley belonged to them
just as Kesht sovereigns felt the entire region from what we
call Khartoum all the way downriver to the Great Green Sea
(the Mediterranean) was rightfully theirs.
The situation can be compared to a family inheritance validated
by matrilineal succession. Brothers fight over the inheritance
of mother. Each manages to get some piece of it. Both have
designs to obtain all of it. Both recognize their right to it
stems from the mother they have in common. One brother lives
in proximity of strangers who themselves covet the inheritance.
And when the stranger succeeds in stealing it from the brother
living next door to them, then by intrigue or by violence the
brother more distant from the intruding stranger comes along
to assure the inheritance remains within the family, restoring
the ancient family values as well.
quote:
KERMA – BLACK AFRICA'S OLDEST CIVILISATION
Story by DAVID KEYS | August 2005 | Impressions Magazine |
Archaeologists in Sudan are unearthing one of the world’s oldest
civilisations – an ancient kingdom which began to flourish 5,000
years ago, hundreds of miles to the south of ancient Egypt.
Excavations – directed by Swiss archaeologists, Professor Charles Bonnet
and Dr Matthieu Honegger – have been revealing a royal palace, temples,
extraordinary tombs and a massive ancient city on the banks of the Nile
in Northern Sudan. ...
As a direct result of these and other excavations, Sudan is emerging as
one of the most significant archaeological regions in the world. Due to
the country’s superbly preserved archaeology, it has yielded evidence of
early cattle domestication that pre-dates any in Egypt’s Nile Valley.
What’s more, the earliest Sudanese civilisation ... is the most ancient
African urban culture outside the Land of the Pharaohs. It flourished as
a totally independent political entity for at least 15 centuries – until
finally, around 1500BC, it was conquered by the Pharaohs of Egypt.
This ancient Sudanese civilisation appears to have been ruled by a series
of extraordinarily powerful kings – perhaps even emperors. Several of the
royal tombs were spectacular man-made hills, 30 metres wide and up to 15
metres high. To underline their power in this life (and the next), the
rulers of Kerma seem to have had the unsettling habit of taking all their
retainers and many of their relatives with them to the afterlife! One tomb
held 400 skeletons. Even before these kings began taking human escorts with
them to eternity, their funerals had still been massive ritual events in
which their imperial power over vast areas of territory was symbolically
demonstrated. Indeed, excavations and subsequent scientific investigations
over the last few years have revealed that some of the kings had themselves
buried alongside the remains of literally thousands of cattle. In front of
one royal grave, the king’s retainers had sacrificed 4,500 of the animals
– arranging their skulls in a huge, horn-shaped crescent in front of the
tomb. But of greatest significance was the chemical analysis of the horns,
which revealed that the cattle had been reared in different environments
and been brought to the funeral from the length and breadth of the kingdom.
What’s clear is that Kerma’s civilisation emerged out of an ancient pastoral
culture that had flourished in that part of Sudan since at least 7000BC when
the first settlements were established. Nearby Kerma archaeologists have
discovered one of the two oldest cemeteries ever found in Africa – dating
back to 7500BC – and the oldest evidence of cattle domestication ever found
in Sudan or, indeed, in the Egyptian Nile Valley.
The economic basis of both of the pre-urban and urban cultures of ancient
Kerma was cattle. The people themselves seem to have come from two distinct
areas and may originally have belonged to two tribal groups. Excavations
last winter revealed how, for the first 100 years of Kerma’s existence,
these two peoples continued to preserve their distinct cultural traditions
while living in the same city. Although the distinctions may have been tribal
in origin, they also reflected differences in wealth and possibly social status.
Kerma was an extraordinarily prosperous empire. It was an advanced [ ] African
state which established itself very successfully as a middle-man between sub-Saharan
Africa and Egypt. It therefore supplied ancient Egypt with everything from tropical
animals and slaves to gold and precious hardwoods. Archaeologists have been
unearthing truly wonderful works of art in Kerma – everything from model
hippopotami, lions, giraffes, falcons, vultures, scorpions and crocodiles
made of faience, mica, ivory and quartz to bracelets, ear decorations and
necklaces made of gold, shell and faience. Kerma ceramics are among the most
elegant from the ancient world – strikingly modern-looking with simple shapes
and bold geometric designs.
The kingdom’s capital was defended by substantial city walls. At least two miles
of ramparts and dozens of bastions protected it from attack. Yet by around 1500BC,
the defences failed and Kerma was conquered and occupied by the Egyptians, led by
Pharaoh Tuthmosis I, one of the most militarily aggressive rulers the world had ever
seen.
Bronze Age Sudan’s fight to protect its independence and its resistance against
Egyptian occupation was one of the longest military struggles of the ancient world,
lasting some 220 years (roughly 1550-1330BC). Indeed, in a sense, this ancient
conflict had started even earlier. For, in around 1900BC, when Kerma was already
a major kingdom, the Egyptian Pharaoh Senusret II (literally “Man of the Goddess
of Thebes”) officially established the southern border of Egypt “in order to
prevent” any people from Kerma “crossing the frontier, by water or by land unless
for trading or other approved purposes”. Not content with simply maintaining a
heavily policed border, the Pharaoh’s son and successor, Senusret III, started
to attack Kerma. In order to facilitate troop movements, the Egyptians built a
canal around the Nile’s first great series of rapids (the First Cataract) near
Aswan. Then the Pharaoh launched a series of invasions and boasted of his exploits
in the Kingdom of Kerma. ...
But Senusret failed to permanently subdue Kerma and the Kingdom survived for
another 300 years, growing ever more powerful. Indeed, by the mid-17th Century
BC, it was ruling over southern Egypt as far north as Elephantine Island near
Aswan. But after Egypt was re-united in around 1550BC, the Pharaohs began to
re-launch their long-suspended campaign to conquer Kerma. A region, often known
in history as Nubia, the Kingdom of Kerma managed to withstand raids by the first
two rulers of this powerful and aggressive re-united new Egypt, but, a few decades
later, a military strongman, Tuthmosis I, came to power and almost immediately
invaded and conquered it. ...
Ancient Egypt’s rulers had wanted control over Kerma for economic – as well as
purely political – reasons. For Kerma had, for centuries, controlled the flow
of gold, ivory, ebony and slaves into Egypt. For its survival, Egypt depended
on wealth, but much of that wealth came from outside its borders and its supply
had, in effect, been partially controlled by the independent non-Egyptian empire
of Kerma. But although under military occupation from the time of Tuthmosis I,
Kerma’s spirit of independence was not dead. Indeed, for the next two centuries,
Sudanese resistance leaders led revolt after revolt against their new Pharaonic
overlords.
quote:
Even before [Kerma] kings began taking human escorts with
them to eternity, their funerals had still been massive ritual events
in which their imperial power over vast areas of territory was symbolically
demonstrated. Indeed, excavations and subsequent scientific investigations
over the last few years have revealed that some of the kings had themselves
buried alongside the remains of literally thousands of cattle. In front of
one royal grave, the king’s retainers had sacrificed 4,500 of the animals
– arranging their skulls in a huge, horn-shaped crescent in front of the
tomb. But of greatest significance was the chemical analysis of the horns,
which revealed that the cattle had been reared in different environments
and been brought to the funeral from the length and breadth of the kingdom.
What’s clear is that Kerma’s civilisation emerged out of an ancient pastoral
culture that had flourished in that part of Sudan since at least 7000BC when
the first settlements were established. Nearby Kerma archaeologists have
discovered one of the two oldest cemeteries ever found in Africa – dating
back to 7500BC – and the oldest evidence of cattle domestication ever found
in Sudan or, indeed, in the Egyptian Nile Valley.
The economic basis of both of the pre-urban and urban cultures of ancient
Kerma was cattle.
David Keys article
cited in a previous post.
[quote]
All the following quotes are from
Wendorf & Schild
Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97–123 (1998)
article no. AA980319
[quote]
... [Nabta Playa] site [E-75-8] has yielded the highest frequency of cattle
bones of any locality in the Nubian Desert. In this connection it is useful
to note that among many African pastoralists today, cattle are frequently
sacrificed and consumed at important ceremonial occasions to celebrate the
birth or death of an important personage and at betrothals and marriages.
The suggestion that Site E-75-8 was where people gathered for ceremonial
purposes in the late Middle Neolithic anticipates the slightly later emergence
of Nabta Playa as a regional ceremonial center similar to the regional centers
that occur even today in Sub-Saharan Africa, where they serve to bind together
groups that are often widely separated in space.
. . . .
These cattle burials and offerings appear to indicate the presence of a cattle
cult. Both the stratigraphic and radiocarbon evidence place these cattle tumuli
at the beginning of the Late Neolithic wet interval, around 7500–7400 cal B.P.
quote:
Many of these tribes in the Upper Nile build earthen tumuli, some of which are
still in use. They serve as deliberately constructed regional centers for groups
that are divided into sections or lineages. Because they are the foci of religious,
political, and social functions for those groups, these regional centers serve to
bond the lineages together. These centers are also associated with themes of
sacrifice, death,and burial (Johnson 1990). In some instances they become the
focal point of royal rites and the royal capital itself (Howell and Thompson 1946),
although most of them seem not to be connected to a particular settlement. In some
instances the shrines include mounds built over sacrificed cattle, while other mounds
cover burials of prominent leaders (Bedri 1939: 131; Howell 1948: 53). There are
historic records that retainers were sometimes buried with these leaders (Johnson
1990: 49).
. . . .
Unfortunately for our purposes, the modern cattle pastoralists living 500 to
800 km south of the Egyptian border, in northern Darfur and Kordofan, such as
the Gura’an, Kababish, and Baggara, who might be expected to share many burial
and religious features with the Nabta group, are Moslems, and traces of their
earlier beliefs are scant (Asad 1970; Lampen 1933; Seligman and Seligman
1918). Nevertheless, the tribes living in northern Darfur use cattle for bride
payments, to settle blood debts, and to determine wealth and prestige; they never
kill cattle for their meat except on ceremonial occasions. Although most groups
live in the desert throughout the year, the Baggara who live in northern Kordofan
have strong ties with the Nubians living along the Nile near Dongola, and during
periods of extreme drought they move to the river.
...
Almost all of the animastic tribes living farther south, along the Upper Nile,
are cattle pastoralists. Cattle dominate their lives: they are their primary
wealth; they are used to pay bride-payments and blood fines, and they are the
basis for prestige.
... there is a documented case where an unusually powerful Nuer ruler sacrificed
numerous cattle and covered them with an earthen mound to demonstrate his importance
and wealth (Herskovits 1926: 28).
. . . .
Most of the modern Nilotic cattle pastoralists bury their dead in simple, shallow
graves with a small decorated stick or pole shrine nearby. Cattle are sometimes
sacrificed as part of the ceremony, particularly for their leaders and the wealthy.
Burial among the Nuba and the Moro, however, is in chambers from 2 to 3 m below the
surface and about 2.5 m in diameter that are reached by shafts dug from the surface
(Seligman and Seligman 1932: 404 and 486).
quote:All the following quotes are from
Even before [Kerma] kings began taking human escorts with
them to eternity, their funerals had still been massive ritual events
in which their imperial power over vast areas of territory was symbolically
demonstrated. Indeed, excavations and subsequent scientific investigations
over the last few years have revealed that some of the kings had themselves
buried alongside the remains of literally thousands of cattle. In front of
one royal grave, the king’s retainers had sacrificed 4,500 of the animals
– arranging their skulls in a huge, horn-shaped crescent in front of the
tomb. But of greatest significance was the chemical analysis of the horns,
which revealed that the cattle had been reared in different environments
and been brought to the funeral from the length and breadth of the kingdom.
What’s clear is that Kerma’s civilisation emerged out of an ancient pastoral
culture that had flourished in that part of Sudan since at least 7000BC when
the first settlements were established. Nearby Kerma archaeologists have
discovered one of the two oldest cemeteries ever found in Africa – dating
back to 7500BC – and the oldest evidence of cattle domestication ever found
in Sudan or, indeed, in the Egyptian Nile Valley.
The economic basis of both of the pre-urban and urban cultures of ancient
Kerma was cattle.
David Keys article
cited in a previous post.
quote:
... [Nabta Playa] site [E-75-8] has yielded the highest frequency of cattle
bones of any locality in the Nubian Desert. In this connection it is useful
to note that among many African pastoralists today, cattle are frequently
sacrificed and consumed at important ceremonial occasions to celebrate the
birth or death of an important personage and at betrothals and marriages.
The suggestion that Site E-75-8 was where people gathered for ceremonial
purposes in the late Middle Neolithic anticipates the slightly later emergence
of Nabta Playa as a regional ceremonial center similar to the regional centers
that occur even today in Sub-Saharan Africa, where they serve to bind together
groups that are often widely separated in space.
. . . .
These cattle burials and offerings appear to indicate the presence of a cattle
cult. Both the stratigraphic and radiocarbon evidence place these cattle tumuli
at the beginning of the Late Neolithic wet interval, around 7500–7400 cal B.P.
quote:
Many of these tribes in the Upper Nile build earthen tumuli, some of which are
still in use. They serve as deliberately constructed regional centers for groups
that are divided into sections or lineages. Because they are the foci of religious,
political, and social functions for those groups, these regional centers serve to
bond the lineages together. These centers are also associated with themes of
sacrifice, death,and burial (Johnson 1990). In some instances they become the
focal point of royal rites and the royal capital itself (Howell and Thompson 1946),
although most of them seem not to be connected to a particular settlement. In some
instances the shrines include mounds built over sacrificed cattle, while other mounds
cover burials of prominent leaders (Bedri 1939: 131; Howell 1948: 53). There are
historic records that retainers were sometimes buried with these leaders (Johnson
1990: 49).
. . . .
Unfortunately for our purposes, the modern cattle pastoralists living 500 to
800 km south of the Egyptian border, in northern Darfur and Kordofan, such as
the Gura’an, Kababish, and Baggara, who might be expected to share many burial
and religious features with the Nabta group, are Moslems, and traces of their
earlier beliefs are scant (Asad 1970; Lampen 1933; Seligman and Seligman
1918). Nevertheless, the tribes living in northern Darfur use cattle for bride
payments, to settle blood debts, and to determine wealth and prestige; they never
kill cattle for their meat except on ceremonial occasions. Although most groups
live in the desert throughout the year, the Baggara who live in northern Kordofan
have strong ties with the Nubians living along the Nile near Dongola, and during
periods of extreme drought they move to the river.
...
Almost all of the animastic tribes living farther south, along the Upper Nile,
are cattle pastoralists. Cattle dominate their lives: they are their primary
wealth; they are used to pay bride-payments and blood fines, and they are the
basis for prestige.
... there is a documented case where an unusually powerful Nuer ruler sacrificed
numerous cattle and covered them with an earthen mound to demonstrate his importance
and wealth (Herskovits 1926: 28).
. . . .
Most of the modern Nilotic cattle pastoralists bury their dead in simple, shallow
graves with a small decorated stick or pole shrine nearby. Cattle are sometimes
sacrificed as part of the ceremony, particularly for their leaders and the wealthy.
Burial among the Nuba and the Moro, however, is in chambers from 2 to 3 m below the
surface and about 2.5 m in diameter that are reached by shafts dug from the surface
(Seligman and Seligman 1932: 404 and 486).
quote:
Neolithic settlement (around 4600 cal. BC)
Around Kerma, several sites date from the Neolithic period, but only
one of these has been excavated. It occupied the same location as the
eastern cemetery of the Kerma civilisation. It was buried under several
dozen centimetres of Nile silt, and could be uncovered in an area which
had been revealed by wind erosion. This site is part of a group of several
stratified Neolithic settlements. They had all been subject to erosion by
the Nile, before being covered by flood silt, showing that this location
was reoccupied on several occasions, and that it was not protected from
Nile floods. These settlements may have been seasonal, and have been
linked to populations practising animal husbandry who occupied the alluvial
plain during the dry season seeking pastureland. The site yielded hearths
and postholes, as well as pottery, stone objects (flints, grinders and
grindstones) and faunal remains. The species represented consisted mainly
of cattle and domestic caprines. An isolated human bone was also found,
indicating that graves were dug nearby. The settlement structures can be
reconstructed from the posthole alignments. They consisted of oval huts,
rectangular buildings, wind-breaks located to the north of the hearths,
and a series of palisades, some of which seem to have formed enclosures.
For the fifth millennium, excavated settlements are rare in Nubia and in
the rest of Sudan. The best-documented examples are again located in central
Sudan. They contained artefacts and hearths, but no structure outlined by
postholes has been found, although we know that they existed in Egypt at
this time. That this society practised animal husbandry has, already, been
noted on several occasions, and the paucity of known settlements has sometimes
been interpreted as reflecting the mobility of human groups.
quote:M. Honegger, (???(Ch. Bonnet, D.A.Welsby, D. Wildung
Pre-Kerma settlement (around 3000 cal. BC)
. . . .
Compared to the Neolithic, where animal husbandry played a major role, the
Pre-Kerma and A-Group periods may have seen a progressive transformation,
characterised by the increasing development of agriculture, even though
animal husbandry still played an important role.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:...
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Why were Ta Meri ([united] Egypt) and Ta Shemu ([Upper] Egypt) united but Ta Seti left out to become an enemy?
And if the newly unified Egyptians considered Ta Seti to be an enemy, why then did they concieve the Prophecy of Neferti which states that a son of a woman from Ta Seti is the legitimate ruler of Egypt?
The Km.t.rm.t are related to the Khentu. [founders] of Ta Khent. Ta Khent is the [1st nome] of Km.t. Ta Khent is also Ta Seti.
quote:Gebel Barkal was way up south at the 4th cataract deep in Kesh. Yet it was the
a cult of Amen
existed at Thebes under the Ancient Empire, it is doubtful if it possessed
any more than a local importance until the XIIth dynasty. When the
princes of Thebes conquered their rivals in the north and obtained the
sovereignty of Egypt, their god Amen and his priesthood became a great
power in the land, and an entirely new temple was built by them, in his
honour, at Karnak on the right bank of the Nile. The temple was quite
small, and resembled in form and arrangement some of the small Nubian
temples; it consisted of a shrine, with a few small chambers grouped
about it, and a forecourt, with a colonnade on two sides of it. Amen was
not the oldest god worshipped there, and his sanctuary seems to have
absorbed the shrine of the ancient goddess Apit. ...
ERNEST A. WALLIS BUDGE
TUTANKHAMEN AMENISM, ATENISM AND EGYPTIAN MONOTHEISM
New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1923
Chap 2 TUTANKHAMEN AND THE CULT OF AMEN
quote:
... long before the Egyptians had set eyes on Gebel Barkal, the Nubians,
too, had held it sacred. Although no pre-Egyptian settlement or cultic
remains have yet been found there, unstratified Nubian pottery has been
recovered, dating from the Neolithic, Pre-Kerma, and Kerma periods. This
indicates that the site must have been occupied at least since the fourth
millennium BC. The discovery on the summit of Gebel Barkal of
thousands of chipped stone wasters, made of types of stones that can
only be found on the desert floor, suggests that people brought stones to
the summit to work them, a practice that implies a religious motivation.
Likewise, the similarity between the sanctuary at Barkal, as it appeared in
the Egyptian and Kushite periods, and that of Kerma, as it appeared at
the end of the Classic Kerma phase, may suggest that there was a pre-
Egyptian cultic connection between Gebel Barkal and the "Western
Deffufa" at Kerma. There exists at least the possibility that the latter, a
rectangular, brick built, mountain-like platform 19 m high, may have been
built at Kerma as a magical substitute or "double" of Gebel Barkal.
from Arkamani
quote:There is a natural topographical feature (the holy Ipet Sut) at Gebel Barkal
... the Egyptian pharaohs of Dynasty 18 had recognized Gebel Barkal as
an ancient source of Egyptian kingship and had themselves crowned there
to affirm their rule, the new kings of Kush rediscovered this tradition and
[] used it to prove their right to rule Egypt. Since the first to recognize
the religious significance of Gebel Barkal had been the Pharoah Thutmose
III (ca. 1479-1425 BC)[.]
. . . .
If [the Keshli] have traditionally been portrayed by historians as "foreigners"
in Egypt, they surely did not see themselves as such, despite their
different ethnic, cultural and linguistic origin. In their minds Egypt and
Kush were northern and southern halves of an ancient original domain of
Amun. These two lands, they believed, had been united in mythological
times; subsequently they grew apart, to be united again in historical times
only by the greatest pharaohs. As "sons" of Amun, the Napatan monarchs
saw themselves as heirs of those pharaohs [. . .] believ[ing] they were
the god's representatives - from his southern sphere - chosen to unite
and protect his ancient empire and to restore ma'at - "truth, order, and
propriety" in the Egyptian sense - throughout the land.
from Nubianet
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
... if the newly unified Egyptians considered Ta Seti to be an enemy, why then did they concieve the Prophecy of Neferti which states that a son of a woman from Ta Seti is the legitimate ruler of Egypt?
quote:is a perfectly valid one and shows a certain continuity that characterizes
Kerma’s civilisation emerged out of an ancient pastoral
culture that had flourished in that part of Sudan since at least 7000BC when
the first settlements were established.
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
It would seem that the “older town”, “traces” of which appear in the “Pre-Kerma Town”, is not the Pre-Kerma town, and has yet to be named, and perhaps its further relation with the “Pre-Kerma town” has to be specified. These could well be traces of older structures during the transition to increasing “permanent settlements” into the region, in contrast to the situation implied in the earlier/Neolithic settlements, i.e. as Honegger put it, paucity of known settlements has sometimes been interpreted as reflecting the mobility of human groups. [and perhaps "seasonal" settlements].
quote:
But recent excavations at Kerma have revealed that while Lower Nubia was falling under Egyptian control and loosing its inhabitants, a complex society was emerging in the Kerma Basin. There, east of the Antique town of Kerma, in an area that became later its necropolis, the eroded remains of a settlement, which may have extended over 2 ha at least and which has been dated around 3000 BC, have been unearthed since 1986. The occupation layer is unfortunately very poorly preserved, hence the information on the material culture and subsistence patterns rather limited. But remains of features, mainly storage pits, hearths and postholes, allow a reconstruction of the internal arrangement of the site. According to Honegger (1999), who publishes a convincing plan, at this stage of the work precise recording of the postholes indicates, in the excavated areas, «around 50 circular huts which must have served as houses and, in the case of the smaller ones, possibly grain stores», «two rectangular buildings … possibly related to the administrative or religious systems of the community» and «numerous palisades». Some of the latter «seem to demarcate divisions of the interior habitation area», while «the majority … could constitute an encircling fortification» with «large bastions related to one of the entrances of the town, following a model known in the ancient city of Kerma». Although there are some doubts about the actual function of those fences, because their form «evokes also a cattle enclosure», the size of the settlement, its internal layout as well as other data such as the use of wattle and daub and the durability of the occupation evidenced by regular reconstruction, point to a complex social organisation not met anywhere else for that time-period in Nubia. This would also involve a related territory that, as far as I know, has not yet been evaluated. Indeed such an evaluation would require an approach of settlement patterns and economic behaviour on a regional basis, that present information does not allow. Future research will certainly indicate a settlement of increasing size related to an expending territory that, as suggested by its discoverer (Bonnet 2000 : 10), was the forerunner of antique Kerma which, according to him, came into existence in about 2400 BC, when that settlement moved west near the main branch of the Nile.
Francis Geus
The Middle Nile Valley from Later Prehistory to the end of the New Kingdom
Tenth International Conference of the International Society for Nubian Studies
September 9-14, 2002 - Rome, Italy
quote:Hymn To Osiris Khenti-Amenti Un-Nefer
Originally posted by alTakruri:
What is the relationship of Ta Khent vis a vis Khent Hennefer?
quote:
According to the population pairwise differentiation test (Appendix Ib), most of these populations appear not significantly different (with alpha value equal to 0.01), with the exception of the outgroup which is different from all the other populations. Only the Nubian population from Kerma and the Sudanese population from Dinka display a significant difference with some populations (Kerma with Assiout, Mansoura, Upper Egypt and Dongola populations, and Dinka with Kerma and Mansoura populations), although the Fst values are under 0.10 for all these populations
quote:
The Gurna area could be the meeting point of two independent waves of migration from the Near East and from sub-Saharan Africa , as suggested by the central position of the Gurna population in the unrooted NJ tree and the genetic and the nucleotidic diversity of the analysed populations. The presence in the Gurna gene pool of haplogroups found in Near Eastern populations but absent in sub-Saharan ones (like U4), and haplogroups found in sub-Saharan populations but only sporadically present in Near Eastern ones (like L1), reinforces this observation.
quote:Hotep
However, the Gurnawi gene pool does not consist of a simple combination of Near Eastern and sub-Saharan gene pools, but also includes an East African specific component. This situation has already been observed for the Ethiopian gene pool (Passarino et al. 1998). Thus, the report of a second population in this geographic area showing a similar distribution of mtDNA haplotypes, including the same high frequency of a specific haplogroup (M1), raises the question of a hypothetical presence of an ancestral East African population. Such a population, as evoked by Passarino et al. (1998) for Ethiopia, could have settled on a wider area from Egypt to Ethiopia (including Sudan), the differences observed in current populations being due to further influences from neighbours (South Arabian peninsula for Ethiopia (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001), sub-Saharan input for Sudan as demonstrated in this study by a high exchange rate between Sudanese and Kenyan populations). A similar hypothesis of the existence of an ancestral population characterized by a specific haplogroup could also be evoked in the Maghreb with the U6 haplogroup (Brakez et al. 2001; Rando et al. 1998).
The results of this study point to a genetic structure of the Gurna population similar to that of the Ethiopian one. This population structure has probably been conserved in some other Egyptian populations even though those which have already been analyzed, such as Mansoura, Assiout and Cairo, failed to show the same characteristics. Mansoura, Assiout and Cairo are very big cities with much continuous and current admixture of individuals from several other regions and countries forming great melting pots. Consequently, data from these great conurbations could be somewhat biased. More extensive investigation of the genetic structure of Egyptians from other villages and from Ethiopian and Sudanese populations will be required to complete the understanding of the structuring of the current population from the ancestral East African population.
quote:Granted that there were several settlements in the region in the pre-Kerma periods, are you saying that the populations who resided at Kerma and Kush, were different folks, i.e., no continuity observed?
Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Greetings:
Here we show some DNA evidence showing a DIFFERENCE between Kerma and Kush notably the Gurna People. This should explain why Kerma sided with the hyksos and Kush sided with Kemet.
quote:This is a good question, I think that at some point within 2500 B.C to 2000 B.C Kerma area was abondoned and later got inhabitted by a foreign group that eventually sided with the Hyksos upon their invasion. Though Kush might have had strong ties with Kemet and showed continuity thus they sided with Kemet in order to remove the Hyksos.
Granted that there were several settlements in the region in the pre-Kerma periods, are you saying that the populations who resided at Kerma and Kush, were different folks, i.e., no continuity observed?
quote:Forgive me since I haven't been following all the info here yet, but I thought that Kerma was the capital of Kush. Is there really a difference between Kerman and Kush?
Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Here we show some DNA evidence showing a DIFFERENCE between Kerma and Kush notably the Gurna People. This should explain why Kerma sided with the hyksos and Kush sided with Kemet.
Here is a very good study done on the area called Nubia.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x
quote:
According to the population pairwise differentiation test (Appendix Ib), most of these populations appear not significantly different (with alpha value equal to 0.01), with the exception of the outgroup which is different from all the other populations. Only the Nubian population from Kerma and the Sudanese population from Dinka display a significant difference with some populations (Kerma with Assiout, Mansoura, Upper Egypt and Dongola populations, and Dinka with Kerma and Mansoura populations), although the Fst values are under 0.10 for all these populations
quote:
The Gurna area could be the meeting point of two independent waves of migration from the Near East and from sub-Saharan Africa , as suggested by the central position of the Gurna population in the unrooted NJ tree and the genetic and the nucleotidic diversity of the analysed populations. The presence in the Gurna gene pool of haplogroups found in Near Eastern populations but absent in sub-Saharan ones (like U4), and haplogroups found in sub-Saharan populations but only sporadically present in Near Eastern ones (like L1), reinforces this observation.
quote:So the question is what do these folks really mean by Near Eastern ancestry?? Notice how they distinguish East African ancestry from Sub-Saharan ancestry as if East Africa is not part of Sub-Sahara. What do they studies really define, recent population movements or ancient ones?
However, the Gurnawi gene pool does not consist of a simple combination of Near Eastern and sub-Saharan gene pools, but also includes an East African specific component. This situation has already been observed for the Ethiopian gene pool (Passarino et al. 1998). Thus, the report of a second population in this geographic area showing a similar distribution of mtDNA haplotypes, including the same high frequency of a specific haplogroup (M1), raises the question of a hypothetical presence of an ancestral East African population. Such a population, as evoked by Passarino et al. (1998) for Ethiopia, could have settled on a wider area from Egypt to Ethiopia (including Sudan), the differences observed in current populations being due to further influences from neighbours (South Arabian peninsula for Ethiopia (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001), sub-Saharan input for Sudan as demonstrated in this study by a high exchange rate between Sudanese and Kenyan populations). A similar hypothesis of the existence of an ancestral population characterized by a specific haplogroup could also be evoked in the Maghreb with the U6 haplogroup (Brakez et al. 2001; Rando et al. 1998).
The results of this study point to a genetic structure of the Gurna population similar to that of the Ethiopian one. This population structure has probably been conserved in some other Egyptian populations even though those which have already been analyzed, such as Mansoura, Assiout and Cairo, failed to show the same characteristics. Mansoura, Assiout and Cairo are very big cities with much continuous and current admixture of individuals from several other regions and countries forming great melting pots. Consequently, data from these great conurbations could be somewhat biased. More extensive investigation of the genetic structure of Egyptians from other villages and from Ethiopian and Sudanese populations will be required to complete the understanding of the structuring of the current population from the ancestral East African population.
quote:Well, the samples of the population was taken from a place in Egypt called Gurna. This region is inhabited both by Sa3eedi people and also immigrants from Arabia that came during the 13th century. Gurna is the only area in Luxor that has large amounts of mixture with Arabs. Some of the people living around Gurna are desendants of Horobot warriors that migrated to Egypt.
So the question is what do these folks really mean by Near Eastern ancestry?? Notice how they distinguish East African ancestry from Sub-Saharan ancestry as if East Africa is not part of Sub-Sahara. What do they studies really define, recent population movements or ancient ones?
code:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|5000 |4800 |3800 |3500 |2850 |2700 |2450 |2300 |2150 |2050 |2000 |1750 |1640 |1550 |1530 |1500 |525 |"0" |350|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| SAI |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| N. KERMA | P. KERMA | | A. KERMA | M. KERMA | C. KERMA |
----------- ----------- ----- ----------------- ----------- -----------------------|
| A-GROUP | | C-GROUP |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| TA SETI ? <- WAWAT -> ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
? <- YAM | KUSH |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRE EARLY & OLD TA_MERI | | MIDDLE KINGDOM | NEW KINGDOM - DYN. 26 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| HYKSOS |
-----------
quote:
Apophis tried to expand the war to a second front, by calling on the ruler of Kush, at Egypt's southern
border, to attack Kamose to the rear. As the inscription indicates, Apophis' plan did not succeed.
From the INSCRIPTION OF KAMOSE AT KARNAK
====================================================
(18) ... I captured
(19) his messenger in the oasis upland, as he was going south to Kush with a written dispatch, and I found on it the following, in writing by the hand of the Ruler of Avaris:
(20) "[É] son of Re, Apophis greets my son the ruler of Kush. Why have you arisen as ruler without letting me know? Do you
(21) see what Egypt has done to me? The Ruler which is in her midst - Kamose-the-Mighty, given life! - is pushing me off my (own) land! I have not attacked him in any way comparable to
(22) all that he has done to you; he has chopped up the Two Lands to their grief, my land and yours, and he has hacked them up. Come north! Do not hold back!
(23) See, he is here with me: There is none who will stand up to you in Egypt. See, I will not give him a way out until you arrive! Then we
(24) shall divide the towns of Egypt, and [Khent]-hen-nofer{12} shall be in joy."
Note 12. another name for Kush
2nd stela of Kamose (Habachi 1972)
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
There was an intimate if exploitive sibling relationship between T3Wy and Kesh.
For the longest time and Egypt did rank some of Wawat and some of Kesh among the
Nine Bows (traditional symbolic enemies of the state) clear until late New
Kingdom times.
The important thing to remember is that certain Keshli families always, since the
foundation of the Dynastic period, had a right to the throne of T3Wy because of
their noble status in Gebel Barkal the prime residence of Amun the father of
legitimacy to rulership everywhere along the entire Nile Valley. A history of
the Amun/Amon/Amen cult and priesthood would be revealing. The root of this lies
at Gebel Barkal, that sacred spot near the 4th cataract holy to Amun which linked
kingship in KM.t with certain families in Kesh so that we see throughout the history
of KM.t there were rulers who held the throne due to Nehesi wives, mothers, or descent.
* As early as dynasty 3, Zanakht sits the throne.
* 4th dynasty queen Khentkaues births the first kings of the 5th dynasty.
* In the 6th dynaty the Uahka family is building NHHSY architected tombs in KM.t
* The 12th dynasty is established by the Uahka family. Its kings bear the
name of Amun in their own names just as Keshli kings will bear Amani names.
To my mind this shows a pre-18th dynasty affiliation of Amun among the NHHSYW most
likely associated with Gebel Barkal. Where else would the prominence of Amun stem
from that it was not used in KM.t in kings name before introduced by a dynasty of
NHHSY roots?
quote:Gebel Barkal was way up south at the 4th cataract deep in Kesh. Yet it was the
a cult of Amen
existed at Thebes under the Ancient Empire, it is doubtful if it possessed
any more than a local importance until the XIIth dynasty. When the
princes of Thebes conquered their rivals in the north and obtained the
sovereignty of Egypt, their god Amen and his priesthood became a great
power in the land, and an entirely new temple was built by them, in his
honour, at Karnak on the right bank of the Nile. The temple was quite
small, and resembled in form and arrangement some of the small Nubian
temples; it consisted of a shrine, with a few small chambers grouped
about it, and a forecourt, with a colonnade on two sides of it. Amen was
not the oldest god worshipped there, and his sanctuary seems to have
absorbed the shrine of the ancient goddess Apit. ...
ERNEST A. WALLIS BUDGE
TUTANKHAMEN AMENISM, ATENISM AND EGYPTIAN MONOTHEISM
New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1923
Chap 2 TUTANKHAMEN AND THE CULT OF AMEN
seat of Amun and pharoanic legitimacy. I imagine the reason that certain NHHSYW
females endowed their husbands or sons with a natural and undisputed right to the
throne of KM.t was because they hailed from the right family from Gebel Barkal of
old from before the times of dynastic Egypt.
For instance:
* the Uakha family established the 12th dynasty
* the name Amenhotep or Amememhet shows the Uakha connection to Amun and Gebel Barkal
* Amenemhet I's (of Neferti Prophecy fame) Uakha family ancestry and marrige ties legitimized his natural right to the throne
I think that Gebel Barka was known to the A-Group originators of the royalty concept
of dynasty 0 and possibly the first attempts of state establishment (judging by the
finds of Qustul), and here's why:
quote:
... long before the Egyptians had set eyes on Gebel Barkal, the Nubians,
too, had held it sacred. Although no pre-Egyptian settlement or cultic
remains have yet been found there, unstratified Nubian pottery has been
recovered, dating from the Neolithic, Pre-Kerma, and Kerma periods. This
indicates that the site must have been occupied at least since the fourth
millennium BC. The discovery on the summit of Gebel Barkal of
thousands of chipped stone wasters, made of types of stones that can
only be found on the desert floor, suggests that people brought stones to
the summit to work them, a practice that implies a religious motivation.
Likewise, the similarity between the sanctuary at Barkal, as it appeared in
the Egyptian and Kushite periods, and that of Kerma, as it appeared at
the end of the Classic Kerma phase, may suggest that there was a pre-
Egyptian cultic connection between Gebel Barkal and the "Western
Deffufa" at Kerma. There exists at least the possibility that the latter, a
rectangular, brick built, mountain-like platform 19 m high, may have been
built at Kerma as a magical substitute or "double" of Gebel Barkal.
from Arkamaniquote:There is a natural topographical feature (the holy Ipet Sut) at Gebel Barkal
... the Egyptian pharaohs of Dynasty 18 had recognized Gebel Barkal as
an ancient source of Egyptian kingship and had themselves crowned there
to affirm their rule, the new kings of Kush rediscovered this tradition and
[] used it to prove their right to rule Egypt. Since the first to recognize
the religious significance of Gebel Barkal had been the Pharoah Thutmose
III (ca. 1479-1425 BC)[.]
. . . .
If [the Keshli] have traditionally been portrayed by historians as "foreigners"
in Egypt, they surely did not see themselves as such, despite their
different ethnic, cultural and linguistic origin. In their minds Egypt and
Kush were northern and southern halves of an ancient original domain of
Amun. These two lands, they believed, had been united in mythological
times; subsequently they grew apart, to be united again in historical times
only by the greatest pharaohs. As "sons" of Amun, the Napatan monarchs
saw themselves as heirs of those pharaohs [. . .] believ[ing] they were
the god's representatives - from his southern sphere - chosen to unite
and protect his ancient empire and to restore ma'at - "truth, order, and
propriety" in the Egyptian sense - throughout the land.
from Nubianet
that made it the earthly home of Amun/Amani. Each ruler of Kmt had to have
their legitimacy tied in to being a descendent of Amun. This is why through
all the 3000 years of the Kmtyw civilization being of a certain family from
Gebel Barkal or marrying into that family was an unquestioned and undisputed
recognition of a natural right to the Amun seat or throne of Kmt. Hence no
problem when a king of Kesh came to hold pharaohship, but rather in fact being
considered by the Ta Shamaw priesthood as the very soul of pharaonic legitimacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
... if the newly unified Egyptians considered Ta Seti to be an enemy, why then did they concieve the Prophecy of Neferti which states that a son of a woman from Ta Seti is the legitimate ruler of Egypt?
quote:Question
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Nubia extends both north and south across the border of Egypt/Sudan.
The territory Nubia covers was just a small part of Kush.
I quite correctly defined Kush as encompassing the entire modern
nation of Sudan and the part of the modern nation of Egypt where
sandstone dominates the topography. i.e. Nubia, Egyptian Nubia
not Sudanese Nubia.
I did not want to define Kush as ancient Sudan without including
the part of Nubia claimed by Egypt. I had no need to include
Sudanese Nubia in the topic header since the part of Nubia in
Sudan is already covered by the word Sudan itself.
Also if you've been reading all I wrote you've seen I started by
including the entire Lower Nile Valley as a unified cultural
complex up until the time monarchies developed when the peoples
of TaSeti.x3st and TaWy both themselves demarcated their separation.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003284;p=1#000019
I've also shown that the royalty of Kush had a certain claim to
the throne of KM.t stemming from Gebal Barkal's Amun cult well
before Piye established the 25th dynasty which is where all
the "standard" "mainstream" historians jump to after briefly
examining A-group and C-group times.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003289;p=1#000030
Not to mention proving that Senwosret III's boast weren't at
all racial epithets since he himself was of Kush ancestry holding
the throne from his ancestor Amenemhet's application of that
certain claim to the throne and "prophecy" of Neferty.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003284;p=1#000020
I understand where you're coming from and I know you can
contribute some proactive information about Kush to this
thread. We already have too much protest literature. We
must build up a new positive in outlook history of Kush
not just negatively tear down the old falsehoods which
helps keeping them alive by always bringing them to
mind though only to deconstruct them.
Thanks
quote:
Originally posted by yazid904:
Keeping in mind genotyping as a litmus, we have to consider that without barriers like mountains, rivers, forest, jungle, etc. much of those areas are contiguous, without the boundaries that are delineated today.
To use the descriptive "Egyptian Nubia" is to deny Nubia as a whole and act as though they are a separate area/people when in antiquity they were not! Perhaps with the defeat of the native dynasties and the birth of Islam, the separation may have become permanaent, as we have been programmed to believe. Well, some of us.
quote:.
The Geology of Egypt
The three layers
A layer of limestone covers most of the surface of modern Egypt.
Beneath this lies a bed of sandstone, and this earlier sandstone is
the surface rock in Nubia and southern Upper Egypt as far north
as the area between Edfu and Luxor.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/geo/geology.html
quote:Very interesting. So one can argue Ta-Seti had a geological basis to its territory as well.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Ya know, it wouldn't hurt if I updated that.
A lot can happen in 14 years, additional data.
For me, growth in the learning never ceases.
Do you have the Baines & Mallek?
I snapped and posted from them on this but
maybe the presentation was unintelligible?
If found, will bump.
Na. Howzabout this
quote:.
The Geology of Egypt
The three layers
A layer of limestone covers most of the surface of modern Egypt.
Beneath this lies a bed of sandstone, and this earlier sandstone is
the surface rock in Nubia and southern Upper Egypt as far north
as the area between Edfu and Luxor.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/geo/geology.html
Lower Nubia and southern Upper Egypt was the original Ta Seti.
Don't ask me why A-Group still gets used when Qustul, TaSeti's
capital, has a cemetery good inscribed with the Ta Seti bow sign.
quote:Don't forget that these eastbound Saharans that contributed to Ta-Seti was the Nabta Kiseiba Culture that built the megaliths of Nabta Playa that predates Stone Henge.
Note Wadi Kubaniyya on this map
thats an appx limestone/sandstone boundary
and it's in the future 2nd Nome -- Heru's
Throne which at the time was under Ta Seti
territorial claim as well as was the 1st Nome.
I think Ta Seti results from eastbound Saharo-Sudanese
and northbound Sudanis meeting on the Nile and I don't know
what about westbound Eastern Desert inhabitants.
Beyoku corrects me suggesting any northward Sudani movement
went west before going north then east back to the Nile.