A topic I have in mind for critical review is the Dynastic Race but not as it was originally proposed.
It seems Ta Seti was home to what could be called the Dynastic Race considering the earliest pharaoahs were more physically akin to Ta Seti's people than to the folk of Ta Shemaw.
A while back someone posted a quote from a report indicating the above but I can't find it now so any help is appreciated.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I don't really buy this even if it's attractive. Shortly after Egypt gets unified, archaeological evidence for the A-group civilization practically vanishes. Some (e.g. Toby Wilkinson in his Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt) interpret this as an attempt by the early Egyptians to wipe out competition from Ta Seti. That's awfully odd behavior if Narmer et al came from Ta Seti themselves.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I don't really buy this even if it's attractive. Shortly after Egypt gets unified, archaeological evidence for the A-group civilization practically vanishes. Some (e.g. Toby Wilkinson in his Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt) interpret this as an attempt by the early Egyptians to wipe out competition from Ta Seti. That's awfully odd behavior if Narmer et al came from Ta Seti themselves.
Attractiveness is not the issue. Physical anthropology is. The 13 Colonies wiped out British competition. Was that odd behavior?
Weren't the Anglo-13 Coloniers of the same physical anthropology as the British?
English royalty descends from Germany. Did that prevent either trying to clean the other's clock in WWII?
I really wish somebody'd repost that quote where "Lower Nubian" physical anthropology was attributed to the early Egyptian pharaohs but not a local Upper Egyptian one, for critical review.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Nubian A-Group The Egyptian Speos (Temples) The Egyptian rock cut temple, or speos, was of Nubian origin. The earliest example of which was the cave sanctuary at Sayala, a Nubian site just north of Abu Simbel on the west bank of the Nile River. This site is dated to the period of the Nubian A-Group culture (3700-3250 B.C.E.). This particularly Nubian architectural expression was adopted by the Egyptians of the New Kingdom, whose pharaohs commissioned several temples in Upper Egypt and in Nubia. The earliest of these, at Speos Artemidoros, is dated to the reign of Queen Hatshepsut of Dynasty XVIII, and the most famous are the paired Northern and Southern Temples at Abu Simbel. Here, Rameses II, to whom the Greater, or Southern Sanctuary is dedicated, is equated with male solar deities but can only dawn via the ministration of the female principal, ascribed to his chief queen Nofertari, to whom the Lesser, or Northern Sanctuary is dedicated.
The Final Phases of the A-Group Culture At some point in time during the Final Phase of the A-Group culture the mercantile condominium that had been established between the Egyptians and the Nubians was dismantled. That dismantling is ascribed to numerous factors, one of which was certainly changes in the climate that caused the drying up of one or more arms of the Nile River, forcing Nubians of the A-Group to abandon their settlements there. These climatic changes contributed to a depopulation of the area, which was accompanied by a more aggressive Egyptian military presence in the region. Some scholars have interpreted a tablet associated with the Egyptian pharaoh Aha of Dynasty I (about 3007-2975 B.C.E.) as an early commemoration of a victory over the Nubians. Although this interpretation is not universally endorsed, the evidence for such campaigns seems to be unequivocal regarding the subject of a rock carving from Gebel Sheikh Suliman, now removed and in the collections of the National Museum in Khartoum. This scene was probably created during the reign of one of Aha's immediate successors, Djer (about 2974-2927 B.C.E.). This monument appears to be a record of an Egyptian raid against the Nubians in the vicinity of the second cataract. By the end of Egypt's Dynasty I (about 2850 B.C.E.) Lower Nubia no longer appears to be actively trading with Egypt; the importation of Egyptian goods and products appears to have been arrested, but military activity appears to have accelerated. The closing years of the Final Phase of the A-Group culture witnessed the virtual disappearance of the Nubians of the A-Group. Having lost control of Lower Nubia, her inhabitants appear to have retreated to the desert or regions beyond the third cataract.
_______________________
Nubian A-Group A-Group is the designation for a distinct culture that arose between the First and Second Cataracts of the Nile in Nubia from ca 3800 BC until ca. 2800 BC, time of the Egyptian 2nd dynasty. The A-Group settled on very poor land with scarce natural resources, yet they became the first Nubians to develop agriculture. This culture was one of the two important "kingdoms" in Lower Nubia. Artefacts from this culture were first discovered in 1907 by Egyptologist George A. Reisner.
A-Group royal tombs were found to be two centuries older than those of the Egyptians. The A-Group had strong beliefs in the afterlife. A great deal of time was put into their cemeteries and funerals. The dead were placed in burial mounds with their bodies facing the West. Grave goods such as jewellery, pottery, stone bowls, linen cloth, copper tools, and cosmetic palettes were found on or near bodies.
By 3200 BC, the A-group was important for his role as mediators in the increased trade between Egypt and the central Africa. However, this relationship with Egypt would not last. Archaeologists believe from the archaeological records that Egyptians raided Lower Nubia, either expelling the populations of the A-group further south or simply driving them to their extinction. For examples, Egyptians boast to have taken seven thousand captives and 200,000 cattles in one campaign.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I don't really buy this even if it's attractive. Shortly after Egypt gets unified, archaeological evidence for the A-group civilization practically vanishes. Some (e.g. Toby Wilkinson in his Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt) interpret this as an attempt by the early Egyptians to wipe out competition from Ta Seti. That's awfully odd behavior if Narmer et al came from Ta Seti themselves.
Attractiveness is not the issue. Physical anthropology is. The 13 Colonies wiped out British competition. Was that odd behavior?
Weren't the Anglo-13 Coloniers of the same physical anthropology as the British?
English royalty descends from Germany. Did that prevent either trying to clean the other's clock in WWII?
I really wish somebody'd repost that quote where "Lower Nubian" physical anthropology was attributed to the early Egyptian pharaohs but not a local Upper Egyptian one, for critical review.
Sup Tukuler?
I think the passage that you are referring to comes from Prowse and Lovell 1996.
quote: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 neighboring 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 neighboring populations in southern Egypt.
I held my tongue thinking you wasn't talking about this paper. Rasol first brought it to peoples' attention on this forum, although he misconstrued the contents of this paper. I then also discussed it several times, trying to set the misconceptions right, but to no avail. This article and its predecessor actually argue against identifying Naqada T elites with a-group elites, since the former had more affinity with the common Naqadan folk, than with the a-group. Glancing back at the paper, the MMD distance value for the elite and 'common' Naqada population are just a bit over the point of significantly different, which basically states that the two subpopulations are different, but still almost entirely fit in eachother's variations.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Swenet is right, though I don't see how that refutes the cultural evidence that Ta-Seti originated pharaonic culture first before the Naqadans. Even if the Naqadan elites did not descend physically or genetically from the Setians, they still are their cultural descendants or successors. One might say the Naqadans were 'copy-cats' of the original Qustul rulers. Even Diop points out that the standards born by Narmer's men on the Narmer Palette were all fetishes found in Qustul first.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
At the end of the day, typologies are useless in this kind of scenario in my opinion. Biological overlap should be expected across both lower Nubian and Naqadan samples given common origins and long-standing interactions. Dynastic theories notwithstanding, intermarriage and subsequent endogamous practices can also be at the root. Curiously, Keita proposed a similar theory when noting the presence of ACTUAL lower Egyptians in first Dynasty abydos tombs. As Djehuti points out, the cultural connections are more convincing. I'm still aboard the Bruce Williams train myself. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You're right. According to the dendograms associated with the Lovell study on the predynastic cemeteries, the endogamous Naqadan elites cluster closer with the Naqadan commoners than they do with Lower Nubians yet all Naqadans-- both commoners and elites-- cluster with Lower Nubians anyway. Regardless they all share the same Nile Valley tradition.
The Naqadans are a parallel culture related to that of the Setians but the Setians utilized the pharaonic emblems first.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ Are we basing this off the Qustul incense burner?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ No not just the incense burner but also elite grave remains as well as rock carvings and petroglyphs in Sayalah and Tushka as well as Qustul.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ OK, I see.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Take heed that there is much more to Ta-Seti than the Qustul incense burner. This is why Euronuts also make the mistake of focusing solely on the incense burner. If they knew more about the archaeology of the Ta Seti both Qustul as well as Sayalah and even other areas like Tushka, things would become apparent. I think some Euronuts do realize this which is why they try to claim Lower Nubians as "caucasoid" too. Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ Where would be a good place to look for more information? This Ta-Seti kingdom is starting to catch my interest again.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ You're right. According to the dendograms associated with the Lovell study on the predynastic cemeteries, the endogamous Naqadan elites cluster closer with the Naqadan commoners than they do with Lower Nubians yet all Naqadans-- both commoners and elites-- cluster with Lower Nubians anyway.
This relationship between Nagadans and the lower Nubians also parallels the relationship between the Nagadan series and "Lower Nubian" specimens in this map from Keita:
As I have noted before, aforementioned also cluster with dynastic Abydos royal remains, even though the latter likely saw some intermingling between Upper Egyptians and the Lower counterparts.
As for the famous Prowse & Lowell piece cited here over the ages, and posted above, the findings also point to a recent southern origin of the Nagadan series.
Real differentiation between the Nagadan Cemetery T specimens, assumed to be that of the "high status" element of the Nagadan II and III population, and specimens from the other two cemeteries--calculated to be those of non-elite segments of Nagadan population of a similar time frame, was observed.
Gene flow from outside as a contributing factor for this was not exactly ruled out, even though it was not one of primary consideration. This is understandable, given the closer relationship between the Nagadan series vs. other series.
The Nagadan series however, show their closest relationship with the "Lower Nubian" A-group series than they do other "neighboring" Egyptian series.
The Nagadan T series is yet closer to the "Lower Nubian" series than the other Nagadan series, which were pooled, reportedly because they are so similar.
It has to be remembered too, that the "Lower Nubian" series used for comparison, happened to date to the terminal A-group period, vs. the earlier time frame suggested for the Nagadan series. Taking that into consideration, along with the notes above, it cannot be ruled out that the differences seen between the "elite" Nagadan cemetery T series and the other two Nagadan series is a reflection of possible gene flow from the "Lower Nubian" site.
I say this, taking into consideration the cultural elements (related to the monarchy) that suddenly appear in Egypt towards the terminal period of the protodynastic era.
In such a scenario, as has been argued here before, there could have been genetic exchange between ruling circles of Nagada and the A-group to cement ties, if not possibly for power consolidation...which wouldn't have been all that hard at the time, considering the very real possibility that both groups (as populations) were already closely related to begin with. Something to this effect seems to have also been at work in the early dynastic period, wherein there is indication of intermingling between "northerners" and "southerners" in the burials of royalty.
A scenario such as the above can reasonably account for the considerably close relationship between the Nagadan "elites" and the other two "non-elite" Nagadan series (pooled), notwithstanding real differences between the former and the latter.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I agree. In fact, I believe the so-called disappearance of A-Group following the 1st dynasty wasn't the result of the Egyptians destroying the Setians or committing some sort of genocide but on the contrary was the result of forced assimilation. Not only was Ta-Seti regarded as the 1st Nome by the Egyptians, but I think it more than coincidence that other nomes in the very south of Upper Egypt such as Abutu and Esna feature very Seti-like deities and cultures.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Where would be a good place to look for more information? This Ta-Seti kingdom is starting to catch my interest again.
Most of my sources for the most part were Bruce Williams such as his paper 'The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia' and Bruce Trigger's work 'Nubia Under the Pharaohs', and Michael Rice's book Egypt's Making.
There is also a textbook on 'Nubiology'
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ You're right. According to the dendograms associated with the Lovell study on the predynastic cemeteries, the endogamous Naqadan elites cluster closer with the Naqadan commoners than they do with Lower Nubians yet all Naqadans-- both commoners and elites-- cluster with Lower Nubians anyway.
This relationship between Nagadans and the lower Nubians also parallels the relationship between the Nagadan series and "Lower Nubian" specimens in this map from Keita:
As I have noted before, aforementioned also cluster with dynastic Abydos royal remains, even though the latter likely saw some intermingling between Upper Egyptians and the Lower counterparts.
As for the famous Prowse & Lowell piece cited here over the ages, and posted above, the findings also point to a recent southern origin of the Nagadan series.
Real differentiation between the Nagadan Cemetery T specimens, assumed to be that of the "high status" element of the Nagadan II and III population, and specimens from the other two cemeteries--calculated to be those of non-elite segments of Nagadan population of a similar time frame, was observed.
Gene flow from outside as a contributing factor for this was not exactly ruled out, even though it was not one of primary consideration. This is understandable, given the closer relationship between the Nagadan series vs. other series.
The Nagadan series however, show their closest relationship with the "Lower Nubian" A-group series than they do other "neighboring" Egyptian series.
The Nagadan T series is yet closer to the "Lower Nubian" series than the other Nagadan series, which were pooled, reportedly because they are so similar.
It has to be remembered too, that the "Lower Nubian" series used for comparison, happened to date to the terminal A-group period, vs. the earlier time frame suggested for the Nagadan series. Taking that into consideration, along with the notes above, it cannot be ruled out that the differences seen between the "elite" Nagadan cemetery T series and the other two Nagadan series is a reflection of possible gene flow from the "Lower Nubian" site.
I say this, taking into consideration the cultural elements (related to the monarchy) that suddenly appear in Egypt towards the terminal period of the protodynastic era.
In such a scenario, as has been argued here before, there could have been genetic exchange between ruling circles of Nagada and the A-group to cement ties, if not possibly for power consolidation...which wouldn't have been all that hard at the time, considering the very real possibility that both groups (as populations) were already closely related to begin with. Something to this effect seems to have also been at work in the early dynastic period, wherein there is indication of intermingling between "northerners" and "southerners" in the burials of royalty.
A scenario such as the above can reasonably account for the considerably close relationship between the Nagadan "elites" and the other two "non-elite" Nagadan series (pooled), notwithstanding real differences between the former and the latter.
Note that the real name of Naqada is Nubt (Nub being the root word for gold in Egypt). Therefore in all actuality the first dynasty of Egypt originated with Nubians literally (golden ones). And the primary deity of Nubt was Set, often called Set the Nubti (Nubian) again golden one. And associated with archery.
^ Indeed, the deity Set originated in Upper Egypt along with his brother Ausar. Many scholars believe the rivalry between Set and Ausar was based on a historical rivalry between the two cults, and the same is true with Ausar's son Heru and Set.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
But notice how Egyptology has turned ancient Egyptian terminology on its head and taken a word that was primarily used by the Kemetians for themselves and used it as a label for Non Kemetians.....
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The previously posted abstract seemingly states Naqada
high status individuals significantly differ from others
others (non-elites) do not significantly differ between themselves
elites were endogamous
elites relate more to Lower Nubians than to non-Naqada Upper Egyptians
To me this implied a Ta Seti ancestried elite at Naqada, the seat of Ta Shemaw's predominant culture soon to be that of all Ta Wy.
On review of the entire text the Naqada elite are not distinct enough from the rank and file for a Dynastic Race label. Also, where the two differ it's not due to elite vectors toward Ta Seti's general population. It's that all these Naqada remains cluster with Lower Nubia before they do with northern Upper Egyptians.
Immigration is least likely cause of difference. Prowse and Lovell present two other takes on the source of Naqada elite cranial and dental traits, - genetic drift and - positive assortative mating (inbreeding). "... 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."
Before studying the complete text I misread the above quote from the abstract to apply its second clause to the ruling or elite segment when in fact it attaches to the entire population at Naqada. So my fourth listed point above proves ungrounded and should really read as here corrected
4. Naqadans relate more to Lower Nubians than to non-Naqada Upper Egyptians
It took the full text to see I made an honest grammatical subject object error when I had only the abstract to go by.
Were I the text's proof reader I'd've had "... the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada. Naqada is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighbouring populations in southern Egypt." thus dispelling any possible ambiguity.
In any event my reckoning this elite as a source of pharaohs is itself unwarranted. The earliest White Crown in Egypt, contemporaneous with Qustul or slightly earlier, is from cemetery U in Abydos Abydos near Thinis. Thinis and Nekhen, just about equidistant north and south of Naqada, were rival power centers of Naqada eclipsing it before the 1st Dynasty was founded out of Thinis.
Is there a similar study of Naqada III cemeteries in Thinis or Abydos?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I held my tongue thinking you wasn't talking about this paper. Rasol first brought it to peoples' attention on this forum, although he misconstrued the contents of this paper. I then also discussed it several times, trying to set the misconceptions right, but to no avail. This article and its predecessor actually argue against identifying Naqada T elites with a-group elites, since the former had more affinity with the common Naqadan folk, than with the a-group. Glancing back at the paper, the MMD distance value for the elite and 'common' Naqada population are just a bit over the point of significantly different, which basically states that the two subpopulations are different, but still almost entirely fit in eachother's variations.
I don't see any argument against TaSeti clustering with elite T as well as commoner Naqadans. The 1996 dendrogram is quite clear about that. Haven't looked Lovell's 1994 report though she does say her 1996 one supercedes it including cranial not just dental traits.
For currency can you post the jist of your dialog with Rasol here in this thread please. I think making new posts is a better way to remind what was discussed before rather than hyperlinking old threads or bumping them. Thanks in advance.
Critical analysis is the main thing and you're good at deconstructing instead of capitulating to group think.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote: Since the two nonelite samples from Naqada are not significantly different, they were pooled for the cluster analysis ... in ... Figure 2 ... which demonstrates that
the Naqada samples are more similar to each other than they are to the samples from the neighbouring Upper Egyptian or Lower Nubian sites and
the Naqada samples are more similar to the Lower Nubian protodynastic sample than they are to the geographically more proximate Egyptian samples.
But the MMD reveals Naqada T lesser diverged from Ta Seti compared to Naqada Greater & B - 5.17 TaSeti - Naqada T - 8.49 TaSeti - Naqada Greater & B
The dendrogram hides this relationship that supports a TaSeti vector in the Naqada elite that likely predates Terminal A immigration to Naqada III and may indicate a time depth to an initial immigrant elite presence that married local Naqadans during Naqada I whose succeding generations tended maybe to cousin marriages though still espousing the locals within their immediate administrative staff who were more numerous with each generation of the social group than patriated immigrant TaSeti and mixed TaSeti-Naqada prospective mates.
Though Prowse and Lovell deemed immigration least likely due to "... consistency of style (if not richness) of grave goods among the cemeteries ...", nevertheless immigation was not rejected remaining a distinct possibility that, when as in the scenario I just presented, excludes neither "drift" nor "positive assortative mating (inbreeding) within the social group."
Just for kicks here's the Table 3 in order
_2.57 Naqada T --- Naqada Great & B _5.17 Naqada T --- Nubia _7.61 Qena ------- Nubia _8.22 Naqada T --- Badari _8.49 Naqada G&B - Nubia 12.83 Naqada T --- Qena 12.85 Badari ----- Nubia 13.19 Badari ----- Qena 17.69 Badari ----- Naqada G&B 17.70 Qena ------- Naqada G&B
TaSeti's more diverged from Naqada non- elites than TaSeti diverges from Qena.
Qena is also more diverged from Naqada non-elites than Qena diverges from the Naqada elite.
One could posit the TaSeti-like cranio- dental elements drive this divergence factor since Qena diverges least from TaSeti than any other samples except the Naqada elite.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I held my tongue thinking you wasn't talking about this paper. Rasol first brought it to peoples' attention on this forum, although he misconstrued the contents of this paper. I then also discussed it several times, trying to set the misconceptions right, but to no avail. This article and its predecessor actually argue against identifying Naqada T elites with a-group elites, since the former had more affinity with the common Naqadan folk, than with the a-group. Glancing back at the paper, the MMD distance value for the elite and 'common' Naqada population are just a bit over the point of significantly different, which basically states that the two subpopulations are different, but still almost entirely fit in eachother's variations.
I don't see any argument against TaSeti clustering with elite T as well as commoner Naqadans. The 1996 dendrogram is quite clear about that. Haven't looked Lovell's 1994 report though she does say her 1996 one supercedes it including cranial not just dental traits.
For currency can you post the jist of your dialog with Rasol here in this thread please. I think making new posts is a better way to remind what was discussed before rather than hyperlinking old threads or bumping them. Thanks in advance.
Critical analysis is the main thing and you're good at deconstructing instead of capitulating to group think.
I did not personally correspond with Rasol about the matter; he expressed his faulty interpretation of the paper a long time ago. On one occasion, he was pressed to share (more of) the contents of the paper and he squirmed out of it, saying he did not own a digital version of the paper. I'm refraining from saying he was lying, on the strength of his contributions to the forum, but I'm baffled as to how you can insinuate you have full access to the paper and come to the conclusion that the paper is saying that Lower Nubians were closer to Cemetery T than the latter was to the locals, when nothing in the paper bolsters that claim.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The 2nd closest position of Nubia to Cemetery T is irrelevant, as this does not indicate a special relationship. Nubia is 2nd closest to all samples, with the exception of Qena, to which its the closest out of all other samples.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I understand that, but still the fact remains there is a close physical relation between Ta Seti and the Naqadans. Which explains why especially after Bruce William's findings of Ta-Seti in the 1970s, Egyptologists and greater Western academia sought to claim Setians and Lower Nubians in general as "caucasoid".
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: In any event my reckoning this elite as a source of pharaohs is itself unwarranted. The earliest White Crown in Egypt, contemporaneous with Qustul or slightly earlier, is from cemetery U in Abydos Abydos near Thinis. Thinis and Nekhen, just about equidistant north and south of Naqada, were rival power centers of Naqada eclipsing it before the 1st Dynasty was founded out of Thinis.
Is there a similar study of Naqada III cemeteries in Thinis or Abydos?
Interestingly enough Abutu (Abydos) is the cult center of Ausar while Nekhen was the cult center of Heru.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
On review of the entire text the Naqada elite are not distinct enough from the rank and file for a Dynastic Race label. Also, where the two differ it's not due to elite vectors toward Ta Seti's general population.
In fact, when you look at the data, this is essentially one of the highlighted differences between the "elite" series and the pooled non-elite series. The "elite" show closer ties with the "Lower Nubian" series than the pooled non-elite series do with the latter. How then can you say that it is not a factor? Whether one considers it a primary one or not is another matter up for debate, as the authors own conclusions make clear.
quote:Immigration is least likely cause of difference. Prowse and Lovell present two other takes on the source of Naqada elite cranial and dental traits, - genetic drift and - positive assortative mating (inbreeding).
I find it very questionable that "inbreeding" of an elite group within their affluent social circle, which would have otherwise derived exclusively from the very same source as the mainstream populace, is enough to produce the differences noted between the "elite" and the "non-elite" series or to show why the "elite" group seems to be considerably closer to the "Lower Nubian" series than the "non-elite" series are to the same "Nubian" series.
All things being equal, and it is assumed that the "elites" ultimately derive from a common source with the mainstream populace, whereby neither were "tainted" with gene flow from outside, then there is no reason to assume that the "elite" would be closer to "Lower Nubians" than the "non-elite" segment, and vice versa.
quote: In any event my reckoning this elite as a source of pharaohs is itself unwarranted. The earliest White Crown in Egypt, contemporaneous with Qustul or slightly earlier, is from cemetery U in Abydos Abydos near Thinis.[/b]
What are you going by--datewise and material-wise, assuming you are suggesting a representation of the "White Crown" that is older than its Qustul counterpart?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ To my recollection, the earliest depiction of a white crown yet found was in southern Upper Egypt around the Nubian area as was discussed here. Here is yet another source. They identify the king as Egyptian as opposed to 'Nubian' yet I question what the basis of their identification is.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I have nowhere said TaSeti was closer to Naqada elite than Naqada elites and commoners were closer to each other. The dendrogram, which I posted along with its accompany explanation in the text, are explicit about that.
No doubt the Naqada elite were closer to TaSeti than the rank and file when employing pure statistical objectivity as the reasoning.
the MMD reveals Naqada T lesser diverged from Ta Seti compared to Naqada Greater & B - 5.17 TaSeti - Naqada T - 8.49 TaSeti - Naqada Greater & B
Persuasive argument can't overrule the math.
Naqada elite and commoners are the closest. Naqada elite are closer to TaSeti than Naqada commoners are.
===
Perhaps the references to Dreyer1998 (Umm el Qaab I) I've read are associating "pharaonic regalia" contempory with Qustul L to Abydos U-j to the White Crown whereas it may be just the rosette, serekh, etc., is all that was found at the latter.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I have nowhere said TaSeti was closer to Naqada elite than Naqada elites and commoners were closer to each other. The dendrogram, which I posted along with its accompany explanation in the text, are explicit about that.
Just to be sure we're not misunderstanding each other.. when I said ''you'' in that post, as in: ''but I'm baffled as to how you can insinuate (...)'', I wasn't talking about you; it was simply a continuation of the previous sentence segment.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: the MMD reveals Naqada T lesser diverged from Ta Seti compared to Naqada Greater & B - 5.17 TaSeti - Naqada T - 8.49 TaSeti - Naqada Greater & B
Persuasive argument can't overrule the math.
True. But is it a special relationship not shared by the other samples? That is the real question here, everyone here seems to just take for granted (I wonder why). When you look at the relationships the other samples have to the two Naqada subpopulations, what do you notice?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Perhaps the references to Dreyer1998 (Umm el Qaab I) I've read are associating "pharaonic regalia" contempory with Qustul L to Abydos U-j to the White Crown whereas it may be just the rosette, serekh, etc., is all that was found at the latter.
I don't recall coming across any finding from Günter Dreyer which relates to the representation of a White Crown in the predynastic Abydos burials that is contemporaneous with the White Crown's representation in the A-Group Qustul burials. Perhaps you can directly cite the details of such a finding?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Can you please list the Dreyer findings you came across. Thanks.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I have nowhere said TaSeti was closer to Naqada elite than Naqada elites and commoners were closer to each other. The dendrogram, which I posted along with its accompany explanation in the text, are explicit about that.
Just to be sure we're not misunderstanding each other.. when I said ''you'' in that post, as in: ''but I'm baffled as to how you can insinuate (...)'', I wasn't talking about you; it was simply a continuation of the previous sentence segment.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: the MMD reveals Naqada T lesser diverged from Ta Seti compared to Naqada Greater & B - 5.17 TaSeti - Naqada T - 8.49 TaSeti - Naqada Greater & B
Persuasive argument can't overrule the math.
True. But is it a special relationship not shared by the other samples? That is the real question here, everyone here seems to just take for granted (I wonder why). When you look at the relationships the other samples have to the two Naqada subpopulations, what do you notice?
Yes you meant Rasol or whoever. I was pressed for time and only skim read before posting last. But It's good to reiterate a stance for clarity.
Well the article was about relationships and as you agree it did establish Naqada elites closer to TaSeti than Naqada commoners were.
That TaSeti cranio-dental traits appear elsewhere takes nothing away from that. I'm rereading Zagrewski 2007 that goes over such traits particularly at Badari.
Since TaSeti originally held the valley up to what would later be the middle of Egypt's 2nd nome it should not surprise to find evidence of them even further north.
These type of studies help ascertain their relative numbers in the various Egyptian settlements.
Interestingly enough I did compile the MMD stats by each of the 5 groups it details. Your last sentence is something I too had wondered about.
_2.57 Naqada T --- Naqada Great & B _5.17 Naqada T --- Nubia _8.22 Naqada T --- Badari 12.83 Naqada T --- Qena
_8.22 Badari ----- Naqada T 12.85 Badari ----- Nubia 13.19 Badari ----- Qena 17.69 Badari ----- Naqada G&B
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: That TaSeti cranio-dental traits appear elsewhere takes nothing away from that. I'm rereading Zagrewski 2007 that goes over such traits particularly at Badari.
I can't remember reading a paper wherein Zakrzewski used either Nubian samples or dental analysis, do you mean Irish?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Interestingly enough I did compile the MMD stats by each of the 5 groups it details. Your last sentence is something I too had wondered about.
What I meant is this:
Qena ------- Naqada T---= 12.83 Qena ------- Naqada G&B = 17.70 (Qena is closer to Naqada T than it is to G&B)
Badari ----- Naqada T---= _8.22 Badari ----- Naqada G&B = 17.69 (Badari is closer to Naqada T than it is to G&B)
So, what I'm saying is, TaSeti is not unique in this regard. All samples evince this pattern of stronger relationships to Naqada T than to Naqada G&B. Therefore, the emergence of this pattern, when A-group is juxtaposed with the two (Naqada T and G&B) cannot be said to be indicative of any special relationship of Taseti to Naqada T.
This paper is based on Prowse's thesis. One of the differences between the paper discussed here and her thesis is that she includes the proto-dynastic sample of Abydos, and they too, evince this pattern.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Can you please list the Dreyer findings you came across. Thanks.
This is silly. You expect me to do for you, what you were requested by me, to produce? You are the party who turned to Dreyer as a source; own up to it, and deliver what was requested, or simply tacitly admit there is no such basis. It's up to you.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
So, what I'm saying is, TaSeti is not unique in this regard. All samples evince this pattern of stronger relationships to Naqada T than to Naqada G&B. Therefore, the emergence of this pattern, when A-group is juxtaposed with the two (Naqada T and G&B) cannot be said to be indicative of any special relationship of Taseti to Naqada T.
This paper is based on Prowse's thesis. One of the differences between the paper discussed here and her thesis is that she includes the proto-dynastic sample of Abydos, and they too, evince this pattern.
You are such a complete weirdo. Your queer rationale is that, just because reported distances between the Nagada "elite" series and the other series appear to be closer than those of said series and the "non-elite" Nagada samples, then this must speak to the lack of "special relationship of Ta-Seti to Nagada T".
If you weren't such a knucklehead, it would dawn on you that the "Lower Nubian" specimen being the closest non-Nagada series to the Nagadan "elite" series does in fact make its "relationship" with the latter stand out. This is especially true, considering the fact that the Nagadan's more immediate geographical neighbors don't have that relationship.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
So, what I'm saying is, TaSeti is not unique in this regard. All samples evince this pattern of stronger relationships to Naqada T than to Naqada G&B. Therefore, the emergence of this pattern, when A-group is juxtaposed with the two (Naqada T and G&B) cannot be said to be indicative of any special relationship of Taseti to Naqada T.
This paper is based on Prowse's thesis. One of the differences between the paper discussed here and her thesis is that she includes the proto-dynastic sample of Abydos, and they too, evince this pattern.
You are such a complete weirdo. Your queer rationale is that, just because reported distances between the Nagada "elite" series and the other series appear to be closer than those of said series and the "non-elite" Nagada samples, then this must speak to the lack of "special relationship of Ta-Seti to Nagada T".
If you weren't such a knucklehead, it would dawn on you that the "Lower Nubian" specimen being the closest non-Nagada series to the Nagadan "elite" series does in fact make its "relationship" with the latter stand out. This is especially true, considering the fact that the Nagadan's more immediate geographical neighbors don't have that relationship.
You, super troll, are exceptionally hard of hearing. But what else is new? That you live in coo coo world certainly isn't. Get to it:
1) where did I use the closer relationship of the Abydos, Qena and Badari samples to Naqada T rather than G&B, as nuancer and response to anything other than alTakruri's position that ''Naqada T lesser diverged from Ta Seti compared to Naqada Greater & B''?
2) Did I not post the fact that the lack of non-Naqada Upper Egyptian relationships to Naqada T as strong as the relationship between the A-group and Naqada T is of little consequence, considering the fact that the a-group sample also has a relationship with Badari and Qena that is not shared with non-Naqadan ''more immediate geographical neighbors''?
3) Did you not ignore the 2nd point when it was posted, being the troll that you are, only to put those troll tentacles to troll use again, when you saw the opportunity to troll?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You, super troll, are exceptionally hard of hearing. But what else is new? That you live in coo coo world certainly isn't. Get to it:
1) where did I use the closer relationship of the Abydos, Qena and Badari samples to Naqada T rather than G&B, as nuancer and response to anything other than alTakruri's position that ''Naqada T lesser diverged from Ta Seti compared to Naqada Greater & B''?
You, super-dense, scroll your worthless compound eyes back about 2 posts [of your's] above my last one. That's where, forgetful!
quote: 2) Did I not post the fact that the lack of non-Naqada Upper Egyptian relationships to Naqada T as strong as the relationship between the A-group and Naqada T is of little consequence, considering the fact that the a-group sample also has a relationship with Badari and Qena that is not shared with non-Naqadan ''more immediate geographical neighbors''?
Which is why I called your post out as being queer, and that your rationale makes you an idiot, for looking it at that way, instead of [recapping is always necessary with you] the obvious--like a sore thumb--and more important fact that the "Nubian" series is closer to the Nagadan T series than the other non-Nagadan series.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You, super-dense, scroll your worthless compound eyes back about 2 posts of yours above my last one. That's where, forgetful!
Lying as usual. Go on, keep showing the forum what a pathetic liar you are. In the meantime, everyone can confirm for him/herself that the relationships of Badari and Qena to Cemetery T and G&B were posted in response to something other than what you're desperately making it out to be.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: and that your rationale makes you an idiot, for looking it at that way, instead of [recapping is always necessary with you] the obvious--like a sore thumb--and more important fact that the "Nubian" series is closer to the Nagadan T series than the other non-Nagadan.
Which is a misleading observation, without the larger context that your vested interests prevents you from coming to grips with. Your observation implies a special relationship between the Nubian and T series when the context denies the existence of such a special relationship. It means little that ''the "Nubian" series is closer to the Nagadan T series than the other, non-Nagadan, series, when ''the Nubian series'' has the exact same relationship with every other non-Naqadan series. There is no ''looking at it this way'' or ''looking at it that way''; when your observation is scrutinized in context, it's shown to be patently lacking in insight.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Lying as usual. Go on, keep showing the forum what a pathetic liar you are.
You must really assume the readers here are nearly as dumb as you, when the posts are staring right at them.
quote: Which is a misleading observation, without the larger context that your vested interests prevents you from facing.
That only thing that's defective, is your ability to think. The idea that other non-Nagada series show shorter distances to the T series vs. their position to the non-elite Nagadan series, is of no consequence to the fact the "Nubian" series is still closer. Your queer thinking isn't going to make the "Nubian" series less closer, as compared to the Egyptian series that are not as close.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You must really assume the readers here as nearly as dumb as you, when the posts are staring right at them.
And you are a pathological liar, and, even worse, you're not even denying it!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The idea that other non-Nagada series shower shorter distances to the T series vs. their position to the non-elite Nagadan series, is of no consequence to the fact the "Nubian" series is still closer.
You're now mixing up two separate things, being the desperate lying confused troll that you are. Your whole line of reasoning doesn't even make sense any more. Contrary to the mumbo jumbo posted above, the closer affinities of the Upper Egyptian series to Cemetery T rather than Cemetery G&B has nothing to do with whether Nubians ''are still closer''.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Can you please list the Dreyer findings you came across. Thanks.
This is silly. You expect me to do for you, what you were requested by me, to produce? You are the party who turned to Dreyer as a source; own up to it, and deliver what was requested, or simply tacitly admit there is no such basis. It's up to you.
I didn't ask you for a Abydos U-j White Crown from Dreyer. I asked if you would share what you read in Dreyer (German language text) pertaining to other Pharaonic emblems.
OK so don't share your findings, that would be silly since we're all here to learn more about topics of interest.
I made a request. You take everything as a challenge.
My original assertion
quote:The earliest White Crown in Egypt, contemporaneous with Qustul or slightly earlier, is from cemetery U in Abydos
Upon DJ's posting, which unlike yours included references so I could check myself, I modified the above attributing it to misreading of slickly worded commentary falsely interlacing Dreyer.
This non-crown regalia is what I vainly hoped you'd shed light on.
This is one of the pieces I misread
Anyway, behind DJ's post, Nag el-Hamdulab is now credited with an artifact first depicting the White Crown.
The question now hinges on comparative dating of Qustul L-24 vs Nag el-Hamdulab representations. But if Nag el-Hamdulab is younger than Skorpion then Qustul remains the oldest. So that makes Yale's sensational title "DISCOVERED IN ASWAN THE EARLIEST REPRESENTATION OF AN EGYPTIAN KING WEARING THE WHITE CROWN" a matter of bomblast.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The Naqadans are a parallel culture related to that of the Setians but the Setians utilized the pharaonic emblems first.
Yes, one tangent to this thread could be looking into the three major TaSeti and Naqadan eras and their subdivisions. What archaeology/anthropology references give the details? Does anyone present it in summary or diagram form?
Somebody fill us in.
Another tangent: comparison of TaSeti and Naqada artifacts for pharaonic regalia -- and yes the White Crown is a TaSeti first. Only unsubstantiated rumors of earlier Naqada White Crowns though the Red Crown goes back to Naqada I. Other pharaonic emblems don't appear until much later. Pharaonic foundation entails all the regalia in toto not just a solo crown.
Since TaSeti had the White Crown first its evidences in Upper Egypt imply suzereignty of TaSeti related royal elements in TaShemaw. However, they were in it for themselves not TaSeti since they show no loyalty to any TaSeti political power center.
Does this hark to select Nehesu families having that "certain claim" to the Egyptian throne later symbolized by Amun, Gebel Barkal, and the Deffufa?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
I didn't ask you for a Abydos U-j White Crown from Dreyer. I asked if you would share what you read in Dreyer (German language text) pertaining to other Pharaonic emblems.
Your post struck me as your trying to come across as a smart aleck, because you queried me on what "Dreyer findings I had come across", right after having told you this:
I don't recall coming across any finding from Günter Dreyer which relates to the representation of a White Crown in the predynastic Abydos burials that is contemporaneous with the White Crown's representation in the A-Group Qustul burials. - The Explorer
quote: OK so don't share your findings, that would be silly since we're all here to learn more about topics of interest.
It's obviously not a question of me willing to share, which is odd to say--and even more so, coming from a longstanding ES poster, given the wealth of information sharing and contribution I have provided over the years on ES.
It's the question of the rationality of your request, given the context of the ongoing exchange between us.
quote: I made a request. You take everything as a challenge.
That's BS. I've already briefed on how I took your post a few lines above, and why so.
quote:
My original assertion
quote:The earliest White Crown in Egypt, contemporaneous with Qustul or slightly earlier, is from cemetery U in Abydos
Upon DJ's posting, which unlike yours included references so I could check myself, I modified the above attributing it to misreading of slickly worded commentary falsely interlacing Dreyer.
First of all, I was the one who questioned you on your post, when you first made the assertion about the White Crown in Abdyos, not Djehuti!
If I'm questioning you, I'm not going to provide you with references at the same time, because I'm obviously trying to learn what your source is to begin with. It's possible you know something that has not yet grabbed my attention, hence my subsequent post about "my not coming across" such information from Dreyer.
Secondly, your post above, mentioning Dreyer, was actually the answer to my first question, which was regarding the source of your claim around the White Crown in Abydos vs. that from A-Group cemetery.
So, your reference to Dreyer thereof, could not have been the "modification" you spoke of just now. When you noted the "rosette, the Serekh, etc", you were simply noting it as a likely alternative scenario at play against the connection you drew from Dreyer (1998), albeit via third party sourcing. You were not hence, modifying an original claim--with regards to using Dreyer as a source--to the latter, with regards to the possible allusion to the "rosette, serekh, etc".
It was right after you made the above comment, that I noted I did not come across any Dreyer source to the effect, and urged you to share such a source, providing it was in your possession.
quote: This non-crown regalia is what I vainly hoped you'd shed light on.
Putting aside what I noted in the lines above, if you wanted to know more about the "non-crown" regalia, then you should have been more specific about that, rather than asking me to "run the list of Dreyer sources" I "did come across".
quote: This is one of the pieces I misread
Okay, it's now starting to make sense how you drew the connection, granted that the source doesn't actually mention the White Crown itself.
quote: Anyway, behind DJ's post, Nag el-Hamdulab is now credited with an artifact first depicting the White Crown.
The question now hinges on comparative dating of Qustul L-24 vs Nag el-Hamdulab representations. But if Nag el-Hamdulab is younger than Skorpion then Qustul remains the oldest. So that makes Yale's sensational title "DISCOVERED IN ASWAN THE EARLIEST REPRESENTATION OF AN EGYPTIAN KING WEARING THE WHITE CROWN" a matter of bomblast.
This is the image I get from my search:
To tell you the truth, it is difficult to make it out whether the said figure is indeed wearing a white crown. What is more strongly suggestive of the figure being a "king", rather, is possibly the scepter he is holding in one hand and possibly an equipment to keep flies away, and the figure behind him, who is seemingly holding some kind of hand-held fanning object.
NatGeo cites the dating at between 3200 to 3100 BC, whereas the burials at Qustul had generated a temporal range from 3800 to 3100 BC. Furthermore, I don't see any Horus symbols associated with this imagery, which on the other hand, was found in tandem with the White Crown presentations on the Qustul-derived imagery.
Also note, that this epigraphy was located in Aswan, when evidence suggests that the main center of power was at Abydos during the time range attributed to this rock art. Nothing comes to mind, that speaks to royal burials of equivalent wealth in Aswan as that of Abydos, nor am I acquainted with a detailed record of predynastic line of kings from Aswan to compare against those of either Abydos or A-group. To my understanding, thus far, only the A-group burials rival those of the predynastic Abdyos royal cemetery.
If one were to assume that this Nag el-Hamdulab figure (king) was from a region north of Aswan, then it is odd the White Crown regalia contemporaneous (i.e. in earliness) has not surfaced. On the other hand, the king--if it is indeed that--coming from south, and in the middle of a journey, would tend to support the southern origin that Qustul objects seem to suggest.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Narmer Palette
Below the bovine heads is what appears to be a procession. Narmer is depicted at nearly the full height of the register, emphasizing his god-like status in an artistic practice called hierarchic scale, shown wearing the Red Crown of Lower Egypt, whose symbol was the papyrus. He holds a mace and a flail, two traditional symbols of kingship. To his right are the hieroglyphic symbols for his name, though not contained within a serekh. Behind him is his sandal bearer, whose name may be represented by the rosette appearing adjacent to his head, and a second rectangular symbol that has no clear interpretation but which has been suggested may represent a town or citadel.[12] Immediately in front of the pharaoh is a long-haired man, accompanied by a pair of hieroglyphs that have been interpreted as his name: Tshet (this assumes that these symbols had the same phonetic value used in later hieroglyphic writing). Before this man are four standard bearers, holding aloft an animal skin, a dog, and two falcons. At the far right of this scene are ten decapitated corpses, with heads at their feet, possibly symbolizing the victims of Narmer's conquest. Above them are the symbols for a ship, a falcon, and a harpoon, which has been interpreted as representing the names of the towns that were conquered.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The heqa sceptre (or shepherd's crook) was closely associated with the king and was even used to write the word "ruler" and "rule" in hieroglyphics. It was essentially a long stick with a hooked handle and in later times it was often composed of alternating bands of blue and gold. This sceptre became one of the most famous emblems of kingship. One of the earliest examples was found in a tomb at Abydos (U-547) dated to the Naqada II period of pre-dynastic Egypt. This heqa sceptre was composed of limestone but was in fragments. Another early example (this time complete) made from ivory was found in the largest predynastic tomb in the Abydos cemetery (U-j).
It is thought that the heqa was originally associated with the god Andjety, who was himself considered to be a ruler. When Osiris absorbed Andjety, he also adopted the heqa as one of his emblems.
The earliest representation of a pharaoh bearing the heqa staff is a statuette of Nynetjer, but arguably the most famous is that held by Tutankhamun in his sarcophagus. The heqa was often paired with the flail, indicating that pharaoh was charged with the duty to guide the Egyptian people (represented by the heqa) and his power to command them (represented by the flail). The heqa was held by viceroys of Nubia or by the viziers (for example in depictions in the tomb of Tutankhamun .
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
In the Narmer palette above the person walking in front of him is a Woman.She is Narmer Prime minister or Djati.Women were powerful in Ancient Egypt unlike Persian, Greek and Roman civilization.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Narmer Palette
Below the bovine heads is what appears to be a procession. Narmer is depicted at nearly the full height of the register, emphasizing his god-like status in an artistic practice called hierarchic scale, shown wearing the Red Crown of Lower Egypt, whose symbol was the papyrus. He holds a mace and a flail, two traditional symbols of kingship. To his right are the hieroglyphic symbols for his name, though not contained within a serekh. Behind him is his sandal bearer, whose name may be represented by the rosette appearing adjacent to his head, and a second rectangular symbol that has no clear interpretation but which has been suggested may represent a town or citadel.[12] Immediately in front of the pharaoh is a long-haired man, accompanied by a pair of hieroglyphs that have been interpreted as his name: Tshet (this assumes that these symbols had the same phonetic value used in later hieroglyphic writing). Before this man are four standard bearers, holding aloft an animal skin, a dog, and two falcons. At the far right of this scene are ten decapitated corpses, with heads at their feet, possibly symbolizing the victims of Narmer's conquest. Above them are the symbols for a ship, a falcon, and a harpoon, which has been interpreted as representing the names of the towns that were conquered.
What is the point you are trying to make by posting this? You cite stuff (generally without mention of author or source), but you rarely actually tell readers, in your own words, why are posting them.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Diop points out that the standards born by Narmer's men on the Narmer Palette were all fetishes found in Qustul first.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Narmer Palette ... Immediately in front of the pharaoh is a long-haired man, accompanied by a pair of hieroglyphs that have been interpreted as his name: Tshet (this assumes that these symbols had the same phonetic value used in later hieroglyphic writing). Before this man are four standard bearers, holding aloft an animal skin, a dog, and two falcons.
Although Diop said nothing specifically about Qustul the post of a section of Narmer's Palette allows us see the insignia or totems Diop said were Nubian, in particular "the Jackal and that of the Sparrow-hawk."
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The heqa sceptre (or shepherd's crook) was closely associated with the king and was even used to write the word "ruler" and "rule" in hieroglyphics. It was essentially a long stick with a hooked handle ... ... Another early example (this time complete) made from ivory was found in the largest predynastic tomb in the Abydos cemetery (U-j).
Even were it properly credited this notice on the heqa would still fall short of a Pharaonic emblem as it's shared even with the chief (sheikh) of a small group of itinerant traders who is denoted by a heqa, i.e., Heqa.khast AbiSha and crew on a tomb wall at Beni Hassan. So I wouldn't add the heqa to the Dreyer U-j list I would like to see compiled for comparison against a Williams L-24 list since Dreyer is used by academia to refute Williams.
= = = = =
A sidebar about the Narmer Palette:
Considering the Red Crown's Upper Egyptian origin is Narmer establishing the Red Crown onto Lower Egypt, in effect transfering it to northern symbology and divorcing it from the south?
Are there artifacts showing the Red Crown as Lower Egyptian before Narmer? I don't know.
Does terminal TaSeti continue to use the White Crown during and after Egypt's 1st Dynasty?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
This is one of the pieces I misread
Okay, it's now starting to make sense how you drew the connection, granted that the source doesn't actually mention the White Crown itself.
Jane Roy The politics of trade: Egypt and lower Nubia in the 4th millennium BC Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011
The author explicitly states Qustul Pharaonic iconography is later than the same in Egypt and listed the icons - palace facades, - sacred barque, - Horus falcon, - robed human, - White Crown, for which she references Dreyer 1998 Umm el~Qaab.
From that one would expect the given reference to in fact cataloque each of those icons, White Crown included. So far my researches only uncover 1 & 3 from U-j. Has anyone seen U-j represent the other icons? And, keep in mind Qustul has at least one more Pharaonic icon, the rosette. Is that in U-j?
Do I detect bias against Williams -- to whom they daren't attach an Afrocentric label -- as a silly negro who's interpretations are just tigger ****? Why didn't the author simply give any supporting particular examples? I apply this to all authors presenting the same inconclusiveness as a fact.
I mean why don't they just show us the U-j White Crown and guestimates of its date. That'd be the most objective way to go about disputing Williams.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
This is one of the pieces I misread
Okay, it's now starting to make sense how you drew the connection, granted that the source doesn't actually mention the White Crown itself.
Jane Roy The politics of trade: Egypt and lower Nubia in the 4th millennium BC Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011
The author explicitly states Qustul Pharaonic iconography is later than the same in Egypt and listed the icons - palace facades, - sacred barque, - Horus falcon, - robed human, - White Crown, for which he references Dreyer 1998 Umm el~Qaab.
I see it now. I stand corrected.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
No, no, no. The post wasn't to correct you but to supply my reasoning to all readers.
I think it a boon to newbies and random surfers to give 'em a little background.
I also added the citation. By the title it sounds like it may be a vital reference. I have it on order. Will post more if it turns out worthwhile.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Diop points out that the standards born by Narmer's men on the Narmer Palette were all fetishes found in Qustul first.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Narmer Palette ... Immediately in front of the pharaoh is a long-haired man, accompanied by a pair of hieroglyphs that have been interpreted as his name: Tshet (this assumes that these symbols had the same phonetic value used in later hieroglyphic writing). Before this man are four standard bearers, holding aloft an animal skin, a dog, and two falcons.
Although Diop said nothing specifically about Qustul the post of a section of Narmer's Palette allows us see the insignia or totems Diop said were Nubian, in particular "the Jackal and that of the Sparrow-hawk."
You're right. I did not mean to distort Diop's words if that's how it came across. I am well aware Diop never said Qustul but rather Nubia. I only inferred Qustul because that was the archaeological finding in regards to pre-Kerma Nubian civilization that was known during the time of Diop's research. The Qustul Culture a.k.a. 'A Group' was discovered in 1964 by Dr. Keith Steele. Bruce Williams findings on A Group pharaonic iconography and the Qustul Incence Burner only came to light several years after Diop's African Origin of Civilization was published.
Just a few corrections to Lioness's citation whose source she doesn't mention.
First off, the person in front of Narmer (as Mena correctly pointed out) is a woman or in the very least a cross-dressed man since the hairstyle, dress, and posture is that of a woman! Even the name 'Tshet' is feminine. I see no reason why it shouldn't be a woman especially since there is a widespread tradition in many African cultures for a royal woman to walk in front of the king and behind the banner-men during a royal procession.
Second, the labeling of the standards are a little off. The first standard is NOT an animal skin but a placenta with umbilical cord which is a fetish or totem used by many Africans including some Egyptian nomes. The second is a jackal astride an object (some say a stomach), and the other two are birds perhaps hawks perched on flags.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The heqa sceptre (or shepherd's crook) was closely associated with the king and was even used to write the word "ruler" and "rule" in hieroglyphics. It was essentially a long stick with a hooked handle ... ... Another early example (this time complete) made from ivory was found in the largest predynastic tomb in the Abydos cemetery (U-j).
Even were it properly credited this notice on the heqa would still fall short of a Pharaonic emblem as it's shared even with the chief (sheikh) of a small group of itinerant traders who is denoted by a heqa, i.e., Heqa.khast AbiSha and crew on a tomb wall at Beni Hassan. So I wouldn't add the heqa to the Dreyer U-j list I would like to see compiled for comparison against a Williams L-24 list since Dreyer is used by academia to refute Williams.
= = = = =
Indeed. In fact, the heqa is a symbol of livestock tending and thus pastoralism. The other pharaonic accessory often held with the heqa is the neqhaqha (flail) which is used by several agricultural gods. Both were adopted by Ausar (Osiris) as his symbols of power being both pastoralist and farmer. Though I don't see what either has to do with the earliest depiction of kings in either Ta-Shemau or Ta-Seti.
quote:A sidebar about the Narmer Palette:
Considering the Red Crown's Upper Egyptian origin is Narmer establishing the Red Crown onto Lower Egypt, in effect transferring it to northern symbolism and divorcing it from the south?
Are there artifacts showing the Red Crown as Lower Egyptian before Narmer? I don't know.
Does terminal TaSeti continue to use the White Crown during and after Egypt's 1st Dynasty?
These are excellent questions I too am looking answers for. Though I find it interesting that while the Delta's deshret (red crown) may have originated to its south in Upper Egypt, Upper Egypt's own hedjet (white crown) may also have originated to its south as well.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Another correction. The creature labeled as 'feline' is wrong. Felines don't have long snouts and long digits on both fore and hind paws. The animal is most likely a baboon as that is another sacred animal to Nubians as well as Egyptians.
Also the oldest representation of a Nile boat comes from the Khartoum Mesolithic in Sudan as discussed here.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: .......
What is the point you are trying to make by posting this? You cite stuff (generally without mention of author or source), but you rarely actually tell readers, in your own words, why you are posting them.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)