Most ES veterans will recognize Kerma as the first capital of the kingdom of Kush, and so some of the information here may be already familiar to us. But what stood out to me in this new article was the claim that the Kushites in Kerma would have coexisted with several other Sudanese cultures, including people from further south as well as the C-Group people to the north. Some juicy excerpts:
quote:But Bonnet’s excavations are offering a markedly Nubian perspective on the earliest days of Kerma and its role as the capital of a far-reaching kingdom that dominated the Nile south of Egypt. His finds there and at a neighboring ancient settlement known as Dukki Gel suggest that this urban center was an ethnic melting pot, with origins tied to a complex web of cultures native to both the Sahara, and, farther south, parts of central Africa. These discoveries have gradually revealed the complex nature of a powerful African kingdom.
quote:Bonnet’s work at Kerma quickly showed that Reisner was wrong. His team’s surveys of the city’s necropolis revealed 30,000 burials in addition to those Reisner had excavated, making it one of the largest cemeteries yet discovered in the ancient world. And after unearthing tombs, buildings, and pottery that predated the 1500 B.C. Egyptian invasion of Nubia, Bonnet realized that Kerma was not merely an Egyptian colony, but had been built and ruled by Nubians. “The country was wrongly believed to have only depended on Egypt,” says Bonnet. “I wanted to reconstruct a more accurate history of Sudan.” In addition to determining that Nubians had founded the city, the team began to identify evidence of other African cultures at Kerma. They discovered round huts, oval temples, and intricate curved-wall bastions that were distinct from both Egyptian and Nubian architecture, and instead mirrored buildings archaeologists have unearthed in southern Sudan and regions in central Africa. “We realized that the tombs, palaces, and temples stood out from Egyptian remains, and that a different tradition characterized the discoveries,” says Bonnet. “We were in another world.”
quote:Some buildings Bonnet has unearthed at Kerma suggest that African influences from outside Nubia endured, and that foreign people continued to live at Kerma even after the C-Group departed. To him, the building styles there represent a conglomeration of cultures, with architecture not only influenced by Egyptian practices, but also inspired by other African traditions. In particular, a courtyard in the southern part of the city surrounded by circular structures and a small fort featuring curved defensive walls allude to African traditions that resemble modern architecture in Darfur, Ethiopia, and South Sudan. Much like the C-Group, however, the precise identity of these later African populations at Kerma remains unknown. Little archaeological research has been conducted in southern Sudan, and there are very few known sites with which to compare Kerma.
quote:Bonnet wondered how an entire city built using non-Nubian African traditions and presumably serving a different population could have existed so close to Kerma. He notes that Egyptian sources say that their armies often contended not just with Nubians, but with coalitions of enemies to the south. Perhaps, he suggests, the kings of Kerma occasionally led a kind of federation of Nubians and Africans from farther south against Egypt. Leaders from the south may have brought their armies to Dukki Gel, which they built according to their traditions, and which might have functioned as a ceremonial and military center. Geomagnetic surveys at the site have yielded images of installations that might have been troop encampments, but these have yet to be excavated.
So basically it would have been a crossroads between Saharan and southern Sudanic Africa.
posted
Yeah they are just continuing this deliberate misinformation on African history starting with "Nubia", even though no such place ever existed in prior to 100AD. Implying that there are no older civilizations in Africa and that Egypt was a separate culture not associated with Africa even though it is in Africa. So of course they will admit to connections between Kerma and other parts of Africa. I notice there has been a lot of activity by various scholars and institutions lately to promote "Nubian" based presentations and programs focusing as part on promoting "African history" but leave out Egypt all together or anything older than either one of them. No discussion of the Khartoum Mesolithic, Wadi Kubbaniya and Nabta Playa that predated both. No discussion of the Sahara Wet Phase and the rock art. No discussion of the black mummies in the Sahara. Its all, "Nubia" as the earliest African civilization which of course is a lie. Just the idea that these Europeans continue to persist in telling Africans what is and isn't their history is the insulting part. Like these people didn't even know much about Africa until 200 years ago. But this is way of promoting African history is part of a doctrine and methodology created in America and Europe.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This article further supports the theory that I and others have been espousing on this forum for years and that is Kush beginning with the Kerman period was not merely a "kingdom" but an empire. Yet for some reason the only Kushite empire most scholars are willing to acknowledge was the Egypto-Kushite empire of the 25th dynasty. Yet even before this discovery of these settlements in Kerma, we have writings from the Egyptians warning of the dire threat Kush posed with its multitudes of armies from diverse nations including Punt, including not one but multiple successful raids into Egypt sacking Egyptian cities as shown here.
Yet nowhere in the article is the term 'empire' ever used even though that is exactly what we are dealing with here. What else do you call a trans-national kingdom with hegemony over multiple states?? I can't help but to think this stems from bias that the ol' black, Nubian Kushites were able to create an empire without aid or intervention from the presumably non-black Egyptians and worse yet did so before the Egyptians did so in the New Kingdom!
I also find it interesting that the Kushite imperial hegemony was not based on forceful domination but rather through peaceful coalition as the article shows ambassadorial settlements surrounding the capital of Kerma, this harkens to the situation of the earliest historical empire in the Western Sahara that of Ghana whose hegemony was also based on peaceful coalition. Such imperial power based on diplomatic relations may very well have to do with the role of royal women as per matrilineal traditions since that was also the case with Old Ghana.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting this seems to relate to what I just asked Djehuti...lol
Sounds to me like the Kerma Empire was more diverse than Egypt further North. To certain degrees. Even before it was brought/annexed into the state, there were direct connections between the two from the very beginning. Which includes being a war, peace, having trade relations, like most African groups.
Still all African History from beginning to end. From the A group to the C group and every Nile Valley neolithic culture in between.
...............
I asked this before, but were there groups already in the Nile Valley before the arrival of those from South Sudan and other areas of the Sahara?
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course the Kushite Empire was more diverse because it was an empire, while Egypt at that time was not. In fact, what I find rather curious was that the nation of Kmt seemed rather confined to the Nile Delta and Valley only and that even adjacent areas like the western oases for example were viewed as "foreign".
In fact Egypt didn't become imperial until the 17th dynasty discovered the plot of Kushite-Hyksos alliance to divide Kmt between them with Hyksos taking Lower Egypt and Kerma taking Upper Egypt!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: What do they mean in terms of Central Africa? Like which modern country?
Technically southern Sudan is in the area of "central Africa"
So there's no telling how many peoples from this region contributed to the Kushite Empire.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course the Kushite Empire was more diverse because it was an empire, while Egypt at that time was not. In fact, what I find rather curious was that the nation of Kmt seemed rather confined to the Nile Delta and Valley only and that even adjacent areas like the western oases for example were viewed as "foreign".
In fact Egypt didn't become imperial until the 17th dynasty discovered the plot of Kushite-Hyksos alliance to divide Kmt between them with Hyksos taking Lower Egypt and Kerma taking Upper Egypt!
Very interesting, so was this before Old Kingdom...and was the Old Kingdom not the height of Kemet's power?
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course the Kushite Empire was more diverse because it was an empire, while Egypt at that time was not. In fact, what I find rather curious was that the nation of Kmt seemed rather confined to the Nile Delta and Valley only and that even adjacent areas like the western oases for example were viewed as "foreign".
In fact Egypt didn't become imperial until the 17th dynasty discovered the plot of Kushite-Hyksos alliance to divide Kmt between them with Hyksos taking Lower Egypt and Kerma taking Upper Egypt!
Very interesting, so was this before Old Kingdom...and was the Old Kingdom not the height of Kemet's power?
I think you’re referring to the New Kingdom. Old and Middle Kingdom are before the 17th dynasty.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course the Kushite Empire was more diverse because it was an empire, while Egypt at that time was not. In fact, what I find rather curious was that the nation of Kmt seemed rather confined to the Nile Delta and Valley only and that even adjacent areas like the western oases for example were viewed as "foreign". T In fact Egypt didn't become imperial until the 17th dynasty discovered the plot of Kushite-Hyksos alliance to divide Kmt between them with Hyksos taking Lower Egypt and Kerma taking Upper Egypt!
Very interesting, so was this before Old Kingdom...and was the Old Kingdom not the height of Kemet's power?
I think you’re referring to the New Kingdom. Old and Middle Kingdom are before the 17th dynasty.
Thanks
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not over emphasize Kush/Kerma as an "empire", because an empire implies a very centralized government structure and chain of authority reporting up to a central body. I doubt that this was that kind of empire. It sounds more like a lose confederation or network of cultures that probably wasn't unique in the context of ancient Africa. The key difference between this culture of Kerma and the culture of KMT was that KMT was a very tightly regulated and well defined cultural, political and economic entity. There were rules that governed much of the way the AE did things which is based on a well organized canon for government, laws, religion and so forth. These well defined rules of state and culture are what laid the foundation for the eventual emergence of empires elsewhere. But the other part is the need for resources and the world view and culture of those at the top who would set on the path of creating the empire.
But remember also, that going back prior to the rise of dynastic KMT, the evidence for settlement and evolving complexity moves further South( and West). So that implies KMT as an extension of these same evolutionary processes, not something separate.
I would also say that KMT was no less diverse from an African perspective than Kerma as the same elements that flowed in to Kerma from other parts of Africa also flowed further up the Nile as well. But given the cultural practices of KMT those elements were easily absorbed and became unrecognizable due to cultural assimilation and canon. Meaning you will always see very detailed portrayals of the differences between foreigners and the people of KMT, but very rarely if at all do you see any variation in the population of KMT itself, reflecting various ethnic groups and cultures at various states of assimilation.
An empire is a violent phenomenon. It occurs when one kingdom or state becomes more powerful than its neighbor, invades and conquers them, and rules over both territories by force. The original nation, what's known as the Imperial Center, will usually extract resources and wealth from that conquered subject. And it may also make some attempt to impose its culture and way of life on them.
Empires grow in this way, absorbing neighbors and turning them into so-called client states. They become more powerful but they also, as is usually the case, grow more unstable and then eventually the bubble bursts. Whether through poor leadership, economic collapse, or imperial overreach, the empire falters and weakens. The client states demands their freedom. The power that held the Imperial Center together fails and the whole edifice cracks like an eggshell.
This is often a time of great unrest. The once Mighty Capital City might even go down in flames. But for its most powerful client states the lack of central authority might represent an opportunity. They might begin to expand their own territory. They might build an empire of their own.
There are many theories about how exactly empires grow and operate, but this simplified account is what has been called the Imperial Cycle, and I think it's useful to think about this when we look at the history of [...] Africa.
Kingdom&Empire of Kerma Kush ______________________ Empire of Kerma->Napata Kush at it's height
posted
^ I guess that depends on one's definition of "empire". We are too used to the word being weighed down with the negative baggage of violent conquest, domination, and suppression. As I said, I define empire simply as transnational polity that includes multiple states. Such a situation need not come about by violence or force.
I provided one example of the earliest historical empire in Saharan West Africa being that of Old Ghana. There are other examples like the Austronesian Champa Empire and the Incan Empire of the Andes.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I guess that depends on one's definition of "empire". We are too used to the word being weighed down with the negative baggage of violent conquest, domination, and suppression. As I said, I define empire simply as transnational polity that includes multiple states. Such a situation need not come about by violence or force.
I provided one example of the earliest historical empire in Saharan West Africa being that of Old Ghana. There are other examples like the Austronesian Champa Empire and the Incan Empire of the Andes.
I am in total agreement. What we see in Kerma is no different than what would have been seen across the rest of Africa (in some ways to this day). Lose networks of trade and contact were always present in Africa in prehistory. Of course the only reason they aren't called empires in a strict sense is because they aren't considered "civilized". And all of that comes with writing, math, central organization, governing hierarchy and so forth. This we see in the rise of dynastic KMT, which went on to be the basis of later empires elsewhere. But it is that history of lose networks of trade and evolving cultural complexity that gave rise to KMT. And lets not forget how often those various groups to the South came to support KMT and help restore the Kingdom. But, again, outside of the "Nubian Archers" statues of the Middle Kingdom, it is hard to tell from AE art what groups were settling in KMT from farther South.
Unfortunately European scholars like to skip over all the thousands of years of slow evolution towards civilization and want everything to pop up out of nowhere. And this is what distorts the history of Africa. Thousands of years of human evolution IN Africa set the stage for everything else that happened since, from the development of agriculture, to math, to language and religion. It is exactly the history of environmental conditions on the Nile and the wet/dry phases of the Sahara that led to the rise of KMT, but most of that started much further south and only shifted North as those areas became more favorable for habitation.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
But isn't it on 1000 yr old record that Wagadu built up to empire by conquering ebony wood armed neighbors with iron instruments of war?
What was the Kaya Magha doing with a 20,000 soldier army well trained enough to whip Umayyad invaders?
Africa is no fairy tale never never land of wonderfully peaceful natives before the yte man came.
Birth of empire must'nt be confused with birth of civilization. The foundations of Egyptian civ were in place of course before Ta Shemau forced and forged the Delta into the previously non-existing Ta Mehh state.
Likewise for conquest expulsion and later absorbtion of Ta Seti and Ta Seti's depopulation before rearising as Wawat.
Nothing wrong with private definitions but what definitions allow the general public to ingest various reference sources.
By standard definition Kush was an empire and one that could make the major Nehesi kingdoms join it on a punitive assault against Egypt with nothing more than confiscating valueables as the goal. Kush was especially imperial when it took Egypt away from the ruling Libyo-Egyptian dynasty.
Don't play Kush cheap. Kush was an empire just as much as any yte, Ay-rab, or other peoples outside continental Africa empires are std def empires.
What's Eurocentric is devolving African empires into not really empires, just substandard negro or colored pseudo 'empires' not sophisticated enough to be anything but overgrown chieftaincies.
Good or bad got nada to do with the definition of empire? Good or bad are subjective opinions judging an empire. This header from that linked article is wrong
quote: Africa’s experience of empire was of an alliance of African and European elites
But at least in the text the writer very well understands Africa's empires stand alongside all others and are not unsophisticated immature not real empires.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: But isn't it on 1000 yr old record that Wagadu built up to empire by conquering ebony wood armed neighbors with iron instruments of war?
What was the Kaya Magha doing with a 20,000 soldier army well trained enough to whip Umayyad invaders?
Africa is no fairy tale never never land of wonderfully peaceful natives before the yte man came.
Birth of empire must'nt be confused with birth of civilization. The foundations of Egyptian civ were in place of course before Ta Shemau forced and forged the Delta into the previously non-existing Ta Mehh state.
Likewise for conquest expulsion and later absorbtion of Ta Seti and Ta Seti's depopulation before rearising as Wawat.
Nothing wrong with private definitions but what definitions allow the general public to ingest various reference sources.
By standard definition Kush was an empire and one that could make the major Nehesi kingdoms join it on a punitive assault against Egypt with nothing more than confiscating valueables as the goal. Kush was especially imperial when it took Egypt away from the ruling Libyo-Egyptian dynasty.
Don't play Kush cheap. Kush was an empire just as much as any yte, Ay-rab, or other peoples outside continental Africa empires are std def empires.
What's Eurocentric is devolving African empires into not really empires, just substandard negro or colored pseudo 'empires' not sophisticated enough to be anything but overgrown chieftaincies.
Good or bad got nada to do with the definition of empire? Good or bad are subjective opinions judging an empire. This header from that linked article is wrong
quote: Africa’s experience of empire was of an alliance of African and European elites
But at least in the text the writer very well understands Africa's empires stand alongside all others and are not unsophisticated immature not real empires.
At the end of the day civilization comes from Africa. However, again, like I said, that process started many thousands of years ago and did not simply happen to pop up in the Nile Valley out of nowhere. Ta Seti was an incubator and prototype for the culture that eventually formed KMT. Ta Seti was the Plymouth Rock of KMT as a Nation State as the first nome of the country. That area of the Nile was depopulated because of a change in the environment and many of the people who had been there had already moved north, South or elsewhere prior to and during the predynastic. It wasn't because of some "genocide" because we know the Eurocentrics will promote that as some kind of "race war" which is absolutely the furthest thing from reality.
Using the term "Empire" implies that these various states in the area of Kerma were "forced" to be part of that confederation. And that is not what I believe was actually going on. This is only in reference to the specific article talking about a specific time frame in that area of the Nile Valley. Like I said, Africans have had loose networks of trade and contacts all across the continent for many thousands of years. Calling that an "empire" is not really accurate. Yes of course there were Empires in Africa (with or without writing and so forth) but that is not the point I am making as those definitions are in the Western context, which looks at all human advances as requiring warfare. So it isn't that I am saying that ancient Africa was some sort of utopian fantasy of nonviolence. What I am saying is that the roots of all human culture and civilization in Africa were not driven by or rooted in violence and that includes networks of trade and communication from which ultimately civilization would originate.
Also, these trade networks and contacts among various African cultures also extended into KMT itself. Again, arbitrarily stopping Africa at Aswan is part of the problem here which is part of the reason for using the terms "Nubia" and "Egypt" or "Sudan" even when it makes no temporal sense. And the reason these people use "Nubia", "Egypt" and "Sudan" going back 10,000 years is part of maintaining this concept of Africa stopping at Aswan nonsense, as if that is some kind of fixed geographic border physically separating the two areas from each other.
Keep in mind that all of these comments are directed at the mentality of the Europeans who at first claimed nothing of historical value laid below Aswan. (And thus creating that fake boundary.) Then they turned around and begrudgingly admitted that "Nubia" was a sophisticated culture to the South. But at the same time they admitted that, they then said that it was Africas FIRST civilization (empire/whatever you want). The whole time implicitly maintaining that fake distinction of what is African and what isn't on the Nile Valley. So yes, some black folks love the term "Nubia" and take pride in it, but at the same time don't realize the game being played by the Eurocentrics as well.
quote: With the end of the last Ice Age around 13,000 to 12,000 ago, increased rainfall cause the White Nile to flow again. This wetter period saw a series of very high Nile floods referred to as the “Wild Nile”. Qadan burials from this period display the earliest evidence of ancient conflict. Large numbers of the people, who were often buried in communal graves, show signs of violence. Some still have stone shards embedded in their bones. Another important site from the period is the cemetery at Wadi Tushka, north of Abu Simbel. [b]Here a number of burials were marked with the skulls of cattle prefacing the importance of domestic cattle in later C Group and Kerma cultures.
The point here is that all the evidence points to Upper Egypt/Lower Sudan as a key occupation site for humans leading up to the Neolithic. And these cultures were the precursors for all the various cultures that came later whether Kerma or KMT. So we are talking a long time period of local evolution.
quote: Abstract
The reconstruction of the environment and the human population history of the Nile Valley during the Late Pleistocene have received a lot of attention in the literature thus far. There seems to be a consensus that during MIS2 extreme dry conditions prevailed over north-eastern Africa, which was apparently not occupied by humans. The Nile Valley seems to be an exception; numerous field data have been collected suggesting an important population density in Upper Egypt during MIS2. The occupation remains are often stratified in, or at least related to, aeolian and Nile deposits at some elevation above the present-day floodplain. They are rich in lithics and animal bones, mainly fish, illustrating the exploitation of the Nile Valley by the Late Palaeolithic inhabitants. The fluvial processes active during that period have traditionally been interpreted as a continuously rising highly braided river.
In this paper we summarize the evidence thus far available for the Late Pleistocene on the population densities in the Nile Valley, and on the models of Nilotic behaviour. In the discussion we include data on the environmental conditions in Eastern Africa, on the aeolian processes in the Western Desert of Egypt derived from satellite images, 14C and OSL dates, in order to formulate a new model that explains the observed high remnants of aeolian and Nilotic deposits and the related Late Palaeolithic sites. This model hypothesizes that, during the Late Pleistocene, and especially the LGM, dunes from the Western Desert invaded the Nile Valley at several places in Upper Egypt. The much reduced activity of the White Nile and the Blue Nile was unable to evacuate incoming aeolian sand and, as a consequence, several dams were created in the Upper Egyptian Nile Valley. Behind such dams the created lakes offered ideal conditions for human subsistence. This model explains the occurrence of Late Palaeolithic hunter–fisher–gatherers in a very arid environment with very low Nile flows, even in late summer.
quote: The earliest civilizations to develop were all situated near major rivers. These rivers provided a regular water supply and a means of transportation. The animals that flocked to the rivers to drink were a source of food. Perhaps most important, conditions in the river valleys favored farming. Floodwaters spread silt—tiny bits of rock and dirt from the river bottom—across the valleys, renewing the soil and keeping it fertile. In such rich conditions, farmers were able to produce surpluses of food, or more than was necessary. These surpluses allowed them to feed growing populations and to store food for the future.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Where are you making this stuff up from? Civilization popping up spontaneously? Preposterous. And a distraction from Kush being an empire. Who are you reminding of the history?
KUSH: Ancient Sudan including Egypt's Nubian and sandstone regions http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003308 Since then I've learned that ancient Nubia wasn't just the area called Nubia today. With that mind expansion I could quit worrying about some supposed yte con.
The Royal Annals Stone records 7000 prisoners and 200,000 head of cattle taken in one year. Even when considering exaggeration, with ongoing conflicts over centuries depopulation can't solely be attributed to climatic factors alone as it was for Dhar Tichitt.
And who but you brought up a continent wide empire when my statement is about Kush not being the negro/colored attempt at empire but an empire like all others worthy of that description.
The Aswan feint? Please. I include the entire Arabian Peninsula in my definition of Africa since taught so by GK Osei decades ago. Doesn't change the fact AE's defined the 1st Cataract a natural border. Nope, no Almighty White T had squat to do with it.
You can't have it both ways with Ta Seti being Ta Shemau's 'progenitor' http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010019#000046 when it suits you and then deny Africa's first civilization (not empire, stop deliberately confusing the terms) was Sudanic. So as I've laid from the neolithic to the present.
Nubia is a term to describe a temporal region when studying the middle and lower Nile Valley. In order to understand what's going on understanding South Upper and Lower Nubia designations are a must.
Since mid 70's and Chancellor Wms suggesting adapting indigenous terms, like Woset instead of Thebes, independent black scholarship hasn't made the switch. So I will continue to use the language people understand. Nubia is what people understand.
Instead of fighting that, help people understand that Nubia breaks down into 3 sub-regions each with various kingdoms and peoples through out all time. Don't rob central and northern Sudan of their propers. They are not Egypt.
The peopling of Nubia (central-northern Sudan) and Egypt after the African Humid Period do not mirror. This is obviously due to neighboring environs, the closest contacts both cultural and demographic.
Kush was a mighty empire of Sudan's Upper Nubia that eventually encompassed all of Nubia (southern, upper, & lower), and Egypt and that wasn't accomplished sitting around singing kumbaya. It was done with weaponry to the woe of Egyptians and LibyoEgyptians alike. Just as Ta Seti sung in woe when Ta Shemau forced it out of the sandstone Egyptian region that once was theirs.
And that's the point. Kush was an empire same as any other.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Zoom out until maps are side by side.
Nubia is a vast region. At any period in time various peoples inhabited it. Calling them Nubians? What is similarly nefarious, to me? Calling the inhabitants of Europe Europeans, be they Hungarian or Irish.
Junker removed Nubians from the black peoples of Africa. link
Terms I have problems with? A group and C group for Nile Valley Lower Nubians. Predynastic: Why still call Ta Seti A group? OK thru NK: Why still call Wawat C group? Preference for Reisner over that of prime documents I suppose.
If it weren't for the Christian era on up to now, Kush would be the best replacement for Nubia. It's perfect for times before Nubae came into use courtesy of Erastothenes during the Ptolemaic, 2nd cent BCE. Since then, and the times Red&Black Noba come on the scene and Axum axed 'Meroe', Nubia becomes more appropriate than Kush.
Ta Seti __________________________________ Wawat (in yellow and lite green)
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: But isn't it on 1000 yr old record that Wagadu built up to empire by conquering ebony wood armed neighbors with iron instruments of war?
What was the Kaya Magha doing with a 20,000 soldier army well trained enough to whip Umayyad invaders?
Africa is no fairy tale never never land of wonderfully peaceful natives before the yte man came.
Birth of empire must'nt be confused with birth of civilization. The foundations of Egyptian civ were in place of course before Ta Shemau forced and forged the Delta into the previously non-existing Ta Mehh state.
Likewise for conquest expulsion and later absorbtion of Ta Seti and Ta Seti's depopulation before rearising as Wawat.
Nothing wrong with private definitions but what definitions allow the general public to ingest various reference sources.
By standard definition Kush was an empire and one that could make the major Nehesi kingdoms join it on a punitive assault against Egypt with nothing more than confiscating valueables as the goal. Kush was especially imperial when it took Egypt away from the ruling Libyo-Egyptian dynasty.
Don't play Kush cheap. Kush was an empire just as much as any yte, Ay-rab, or other peoples outside continental Africa empires are std def empires.
What's Eurocentric is devolving African empires into not really empires, just substandard negro or colored pseudo 'empires' not sophisticated enough to be anything but overgrown chieftaincies.
Good or bad got nada to do with the definition of empire? Good or bad are subjective opinions judging an empire. This header from that linked article is wrong
quote: Africa’s experience of empire was of an alliance of African and European elites
But at least in the text the writer very well understands Africa's empires stand alongside all others and are not unsophisticated immature not real empires.
Nobody said the creation of even the most 'peaceful' empires came without a cost of any type of conflict. Such was the price for hegemony.
The original point was that such hegemony was not necessarily maintained on brutal oppression.
By the way, this reminds me of the theory that you and/or Ausar postulated about the reason why the 12th dynasty kings set up garrisons on their southern border and beyond into Wawat and why they banned Kushites from entering Egypt except to trade (certainly under armed guard), and that all of this coincided with assassination attempts against them. This could have been attempt by the Kerman Kushites to destabilize Kmt and then usurp the throne.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Where are you making this stuff up from? Civilization popping up spontaneously? Preposterous. And a distraction from Kush being an empire. Who are you reminding of the history?
KUSH: Ancient Sudan including Egypt's Nubian and sandstone regions http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003308 Since then I've learned that ancient Nubia wasn't just the area called Nubia today. With that mind expansion I could quit worrying about some supposed yte con.
The Royal Annals Stone records 7000 prisoners and 200,000 head of cattle taken in one year. Even when considering exaggeration, with ongoing conflicts over centuries depopulation can't solely be attributed to climatic factors alone as it was for Dhar Tichitt.
And who but you brought up a continent wide empire when my statement is about Kush not being the negro/colored attempt at empire but an empire like all others worthy of that description.
The Aswan feint? Please. I include the entire Arabian Peninsula in my definition of Africa since taught so by GK Osei decades ago. Doesn't change the fact AE's defined the 1st Cataract a natural border. Nope, no Almighty White T had squat to do with it.
You can't have it both ways with Ta Seti being Ta Shemau's 'progenitor' http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010019#000046 when it suits you and then deny Africa's first civilization (not empire, stop deliberately confusing the terms) was Sudanic. So as I've laid from the neolithic to the present.
Nubia is a term to describe a temporal region when studying the middle and lower Nile Valley. In order to understand what's going on understanding South Upper and Lower Nubia designations are a must.
Since mid 70's and Chancellor Wms suggesting adapting indigenous terms, like Woset instead of Thebes, independent black scholarship hasn't made the switch. So I will continue to use the language people understand. Nubia is what people understand.
Instead of fighting that, help people understand that Nubia breaks down into 3 sub-regions each with various kingdoms and peoples through out all time. Don't rob central and northern Sudan of their propers. They are not Egypt.
The peopling of Nubia (central-northern Sudan) and Egypt after the African Humid Period do not mirror. This is obviously due to neighboring environs, the closest contacts both cultural and demographic.
Kush was a mighty empire of Sudan's Upper Nubia that eventually encompassed all of Nubia (southern, upper, & lower), and Egypt and that wasn't accomplished sitting around singing kumbaya. It was done with weaponry to the woe of Egyptians and LibyoEgyptians alike. Just as Ta Seti sung in woe when Ta Shemau forced it out of the sandstone Egyptian region that once was theirs.
And that's the point. Kush was an empire same as any other.
You still don' get it. My point was I wasn't responding to you that is why I never mentioned you directly in my original post. I think you are taking this personal when it was never and still isn't directed at you.
I did not say that Kush wasn't a powerful force on the Nile. Not the point at all. I am saying that all those other African groups who were present in the area were not necessarily there because of any unique power or pressure put on them by the Kushite state, which would imply an "Empire". (Think along the lines of the British empire and all the Jamaicans and others in Britain). I am specifically making the point that if you looked at other African population centers from the same time period you would also see similar patterns of various groups interacting. That in and of itself does not imply an empire. If and when they start excavating more ancient sites in Africa this will become more clear.
Here is the part I am referring to from the article:
quote: But Bonnet’s excavations are offering a markedly Nubian perspective on the earliest days of Kerma and its role as the capital of a far-reaching kingdom that dominated the Nile south of Egypt. His finds there and at a neighboring ancient settlement known as Dukki Gel suggest that this urban center was an ethnic melting pot, with origins tied to a complex web of cultures native to both the Sahara, and, farther south, parts of central Africa. These discoveries have gradually revealed the complex nature of a powerful African kingdom.
Again the point being made here is that the "cosmopolitan" nature of Kush, in terms of interacting with other African groups wasn't unique and in and of itself in African ancient history. I also made the point that the people of KMT also had similar exchanges with other African groups farther South and West as well. To me, and this has nothing to do with anyone on this forum, this is portraying Kush/Kerma as the "African" kingdom on the Nile, because of those African contacts, while KMT is of course left as some outlier. The only reason you don't see foreign architecture in KMT is because their towns and cities were centrally planned and built. So it is hard to tell if other African groups were present based on styles of housing. It is also written in the article that the only reason these African groups could have such a level of interaction and exchange with each other was because of force. I do not agree with that at all. That is just how I read the article and nothing to do with anyone here on this forum.
Also, in terms of KMT not popping up out of nowhere, didn't KMT come about as a result of various groups along the Nile and from the Sahara coming together to create the worlds first nation state? Or are they trying to portray KMT as some monocutulture and homogeneous place with little to no contacts with the rest of Africa. Sorry, I have been reading these kinds of articles from Euro scholars for too long and these things always come to mind when I read them. Also I seem to recall some DNA threads where central African DNA was found in some mummies from KMT. And I myself have drawn comparisons to the customs of Congo and KMT, including head binding. And as for having non local troops fighting battles, don't we have tombs showing groups from outside KMT helping them fight their wars? Is this supposed to be unique to Kerma now? Some of these things were a common pattern along the Nile for many years.
Also, they keep calling this "Nubian" history but again there was no nation or country unified under the term "Nubia". They say that the C-Group possibly came from Western Sudan. So how does that make them 'Nubian'? What does "Nubian" even mean then? And Kerma was certainly not the beginning of history and culture along that part of the Nile, call it "Nubian" or whatever you want. But these people wrote the article like Kerma was the "beginning" of so-called "Nubian" history but completely left out the "A-Group" and also left out Nabta Playa, Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa, Khartoum Mesolithic and other sites. If they are claiming "Nubian" as a regional term, then all those cultures that predated Kerma should be included. But of course, their usage of the term "Nubia" has no logical consistency and is only the result of Reisner and others separating Egypt from the rest of Africa. And that is how they still use it.
Disagree with that, fine. But that is my thought on the article.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
No. The point I responded to was Kush being a fake asz empire with a detailed definition of the Imperial Cycle from a vid on West African empires and a chart on Lower Nubia and Kush.
So who brought up ruthless barbarism as empire building strategy?
One polity takes over another one to start the cycle. The threat of armed conquest often quells resistance, staving war. That appears factual since armies aren't diplomats and polities don't yield self-hegemony willingly. People would continue to flock where the grass looked greener when able. Urban centers become more cosmopolitan attracting new foreigners.
Kush-MK relations are complicated. Consider the origin of the dynasty. Buhen, a fortress refinery was the first of a chain of AE bldg projects in Lower Nubia at a time when Kush had yet to expand north in its imperial growth.
Uncertainty shadows Buhen's origins. Was it built due to events like on the Royal Annals Stone where the first notice of Nehesi is a pharaoh hacking them up, boasting 7000 POWs and 200,000 head herd mix.
That chart tables shifting Buhen control over several dynasties and shows it mostly in Nehesi hands until NK. What the chart doesn't explicitly show is the change of Nehesi hands from Lower to Upper Nubia but the timeline helps extrapolate approximately when. At that time if not ealier, Kush certainly became an empire.
Interesting? Kerma Kush plans to destabilize Egypt for takeover. Well, before Napata Kush 'liberated' Egypt remember that record of Imperial Kush sacking south Upper Egypt just for kicks?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: But isn't it on 1000 yr old record that Wagadu built up to empire by conquering ebony wood armed neighbors with iron instruments of war?
What was the Kaya Magha doing with a 20,000 soldier army well trained enough to whip Umayyad invaders?
Africa is no fairy tale never never land of wonderfully peaceful natives before the yte man came.
Birth of empire must'nt be confused with birth of civilization. The foundations of Egyptian civ were in place of course before Ta Shemau forced and forged the Delta into the previously non-existing Ta Mehh state.
Likewise for conquest expulsion and later absorbtion of Ta Seti and Ta Seti's depopulation before rearising as Wawat.
Nothing wrong with private definitions but what definitions allow the general public to ingest various reference sources.
By standard definition Kush was an empire and one that could make the major Nehesi kingdoms join it on a punitive assault against Egypt with nothing more than confiscating valueables as the goal. Kush was especially imperial when it took Egypt away from the ruling Libyo-Egyptian dynasty.
Don't play Kush cheap. Kush was an empire just as much as any yte, Ay-rab, or other peoples outside continental Africa empires are std def empires.
What's Eurocentric is devolving African empires into not really empires, just substandard negro or colored pseudo 'empires' not sophisticated enough to be anything but overgrown chieftaincies.
Good or bad got nada to do with the definition of empire? Good or bad are subjective opinions judging an empire. This header from that linked article is wrong
quote: Africa’s experience of empire was of an alliance of African and European elites
But at least in the text the writer very well understands Africa's empires stand alongside all others and are not unsophisticated immature not real empires.
Nobody said the creation of even the most 'peaceful' empires came without a cost of any type of conflict. Such was the price for hegemony.
The original point was that such hegemony was not necessarily maintained on brutal oppression.
By the way, this reminds me of the theory that you and/or Ausar postulated about the reason why the 12th dynasty kings set up garrisons on their southern border and beyond into Wawat and why they banned Kushites from entering Egypt except to trade (certainly under armed guard), and that all of this coincided with assassination attempts against them. This could have been attempt by the Kerman Kushites to destabilize Kmt and then usurp the throne.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Please. Taking it personal? No, taking it about Kush empire status.
It was said Kush wasn't an empire. In response it was said that Kush is an empire.
Any other point is beside the point of that precision.
It's an open conversation.
Just as you conflated empire with civilization you now seem to not grant a difference between kingdom and empire based on the fact they share overlapping functions of authority.
Empires are built when one kingdom takes over another, usually its neighbor. If a kingdom didn't do all that you list it wouldn't be worth taking it over and adding to the empire.
By either force or 'coercion' empires do to kingdoms what kingdoms did to states what states maybe did to towns.
I see a chain.
There's no implication of empire involved. Kush was an empire, and if not earlier, certainly by the time it ruled over Lower Nubia and I suspect before then it took over all or most of Upper Nubia and possibly parts of Southern Nubia ESE of which lay Pwenet. Nat'l Geo even acknowledges Kush empire status on the same par as the other ancient empires in this video clip on mostly South Nubia Meroe capital Kush. https://youtu.be/b86XE3TbXg0
One thing I'm sure we agree on. It's good to see updates on Ta Seti/Wawat and Kush! I respect your right to your opinion though it butts heads with what I think. Hopefully both our expressions'll get more ESers to reply, and maybe with something neither of us get into. Keep your sabre handy!!
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You still don' get it. My point was I wasn't responding to you that is why I never mentioned you directly in my original post. I think you are taking this personal when it was never and still isn't directed at you.
I did not say that Kush wasn't a powerful force on the Nile. Not the point at all. I am saying that all those other African groups who were present in the area were not necessarily there because of any unique power or pressure put on them by the Kushite state, which would imply an "Empire". (Think along the lines of the British empire and all the Jamaicans and others in Britain). I am specifically making the point that if you looked at other African population centers from the same time period you would also see similar patterns of various groups interacting. That in and of itself does not imply an empire. If and when they start excavating more ancient sites in Africa this will become more clear.
Here is the part I am referring to from the article:
quote: But Bonnet’s excavations are offering a markedly Nubian perspective on the earliest days of Kerma and its role as the capital of a far-reaching kingdom that dominated the Nile south of Egypt. His finds there and at a neighboring ancient settlement known as Dukki Gel suggest that this urban center was an ethnic melting pot, with origins tied to a complex web of cultures native to both the Sahara, and, farther south, parts of central Africa. These discoveries have gradually revealed the complex nature of a powerful African kingdom.
Again the point being made here is that the "cosmopolitan" nature of Kush, in terms of interacting with other African groups wasn't unique and in and of itself in African ancient history. I also made the point that the people of KMT also had similar exchanges with other African groups farther South and West as well. To me, and this has nothing to do with anyone on this forum, this is portraying Kush/Kerma as the "African" kingdom on the Nile, because of those African contacts, while KMT is of course left as some outlier. The only reason you don't see foreign architecture in KMT is because their towns and cities were centrally planned and built. So it is hard to tell if other African groups were present based on styles of housing. It is also written in the article that the only reason these African groups could have such a level of interaction and exchange with each other was because of force. I do not agree with that at all. That is just how I read the article and nothing to do with anyone here on this forum.
Also, in terms of KMT not popping up out of nowhere, didn't KMT come about as a result of various groups along the Nile and from the Sahara coming together to create the worlds first nation state? Or are they trying to portray KMT as some monocutulture and homogeneous place with little to no contacts with the rest of Africa. Sorry, I have been reading these kinds of articles from Euro scholars for too long and these things always come to mind when I read them. Also I seem to recall some DNA threads where central African DNA was found in some mummies from KMT. And I myself have drawn comparisons to the customs of Congo and KMT, including head binding. And as for having non local troops fighting battles, don't we have tombs showing groups from outside KMT helping them fight their wars? Is this supposed to be unique to Kerma now? Some of these things were a common pattern along the Nile for many years.
Also, they keep calling this "Nubian" history but again there was no nation or country unified under the term "Nubia". They say that the C-Group possibly came from Western Sudan. So how does that make them 'Nubian'? What does "Nubian" even mean then? And Kerma was certainly not the beginning of history and culture along that part of the Nile, call it "Nubian" or whatever you want. But these people wrote the article like Kerma was the "beginning" of so-called "Nubian" history but completely left out the "A-Group" and also left out Nabta Playa, Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa, Khartoum Mesolithic and other sites. If they are claiming "Nubian" as a regional term, then all those cultures that predated Kerma should be included. But of course, their usage of the term "Nubia" has no logical consistency and is only the result of Reisner and others separating Egypt from the rest of Africa. And that is how they still use it.
Disagree with that, fine. But that is my thought on the article.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: No. The point I responded to was Kush being a fake asz empire with a detailed definition of the Imperial Cycle from a vid on West African empires and a chart on Lower Nubia and Kush.
So who brought up ruthless barbarism as empire building strategy?
One polity takes over another one to start the cycle. The threat of armed conquest often quells resistance, staving war. That appears factual since armies aren't diplomats and polities don't yield self-hegemony willingly. People would continue to flock where the grass looked greener when able. Urban centers become more cosmopolitan attracting new foreigners.
Kush-MK relations are complicated. Consider the origin of the dynasty. Buhen, a fortress refinery was the first of a chain of AE bldg projects in Lower Nubia at a time when Kush had yet to expand north in its imperial growth.
Uncertainty shadows Buhen's origins. Was it built due to events like on the Royal Annals Stone where the first notice of Nehesi is a pharaoh hacking them up, boasting 7000 POWs and 200,000 head herd mix.
That chart tables shifting Buhen control over several dynasties and shows it mostly in Nehesi hands until NK. What the chart doesn't explicitly show is the change of Nehesi hands from Lower to Upper Nubia but the timeline helps extrapolate approximately when. At that time if not ealier, Kush certainly became an empire.
Interesting? Kerma Kush plans to destabilize Egypt for takeover. Well, before Napata Kush 'liberated' Egypt remember that record of Imperial Kush sacking south Upper Egypt just for kicks?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: But isn't it on 1000 yr old record that Wagadu built up to empire by conquering ebony wood armed neighbors with iron instruments of war?
What was the Kaya Magha doing with a 20,000 soldier army well trained enough to whip Umayyad invaders?
Africa is no fairy tale never never land of wonderfully peaceful natives before the yte man came.
Birth of empire must'nt be confused with birth of civilization. The foundations of Egyptian civ were in place of course before Ta Shemau forced and forged the Delta into the previously non-existing Ta Mehh state.
Likewise for conquest expulsion and later absorbtion of Ta Seti and Ta Seti's depopulation before rearising as Wawat.
Nothing wrong with private definitions but what definitions allow the general public to ingest various reference sources.
By standard definition Kush was an empire and one that could make the major Nehesi kingdoms join it on a punitive assault against Egypt with nothing more than confiscating valueables as the goal. Kush was especially imperial when it took Egypt away from the ruling Libyo-Egyptian dynasty.
Don't play Kush cheap. Kush was an empire just as much as any yte, Ay-rab, or other peoples outside continental Africa empires are std def empires.
What's Eurocentric is devolving African empires into not really empires, just substandard negro or colored pseudo 'empires' not sophisticated enough to be anything but overgrown chieftaincies.
Good or bad got nada to do with the definition of empire? Good or bad are subjective opinions judging an empire. This header from that linked article is wrong
quote: Africa’s experience of empire was of an alliance of African and European elites
But at least in the text the writer very well understands Africa's empires stand alongside all others and are not unsophisticated immature not real empires.
Nobody said the creation of even the most 'peaceful' empires came without a cost of any type of conflict. Such was the price for hegemony.
The original point was that such hegemony was not necessarily maintained on brutal oppression.
By the way, this reminds me of the theory that you and/or Ausar postulated about the reason why the 12th dynasty kings set up garrisons on their southern border and beyond into Wawat and why they banned Kushites from entering Egypt except to trade (certainly under armed guard), and that all of this coincided with assassination attempts against them. This could have been attempt by the Kerman Kushites to destabilize Kmt and then usurp the throne.
I think you misunderstood my point.
The way Europeans understand ancient history is always from their own frame of reference. When they say empire, they are going back to Rome and Greece. And their view on the history of civilization always revolves around conquest and conflict. Which from a European historical perspective reflects the history within Europe. But that is not how civilization started. My point of contention was not that Kerma as identified in the article, wasn't a powerful city state or culture militarily. My point of contention is the idea that the only way African groups could come together and exchange ideas via trade and commerce was through force or coercion. Humans have been coming together for trade and commerce since almost forever. So my point wasn't to say that Kerma or later Kush weren't sophisticated or powerful, but to say that people coming together in larger and larger collective entities since the dawn of time are the roots of all civilization on the planet. And that started in Africa but when you piecemeal the history into "oh these groups suddenly started building huts together at such and such a time" it makes an implied statement on human evolutionary history that is false. That has always been happening is my point and over time those collective cultures became more and more sophisticated and eventually gave rise to KMT. It is a part of the continuous flow of human history. This is the problem I have with the way they present Nile Valley and Saharan history as a disjointed collection of various dwellings and sites, while at the same time claiming civilizations started along rivers.....
And the fact is that the only reason those older cultures in Kerma and Kush were not called "civilization" is because they didn't have formal writing. That said, the precursors of all human writing originated in the rock art from the Sahara and Nile Valley, the oldest of which are in the same areas as other so-called "Nubian" prehistoric sites. Again, my point is that all of the history on the Nile is a continuum starting many thousands of years ago and eventually forming the later cultures like Kerma, KMT and Kush. But they all arose in the same Nilo-Saharan cultural complex.
Here is an excerpt describing the oldest rock art found featuring proto-pharaonic imagery and how it is treated as some "separate" custom or tradition that sprang out of nowhere. They even talk of panther skin symbols as if some new and unique custom or marker as if that is unique to KMT.The idea of continuity between cultures is totally and deliberately downplayed.
quote: Rather than being an unknown toponym, the feline head with city determina-tive may write the early name of Kom Ombo. The sign of the panther, or at least head thereof, appears in toponyms such as Pekhat (near Speos Artemi-dos: Gauthier 1925, 148; Klotz and LeBlanc 2012: 661-662) and Nebwy (near Memphis or Herakleopolis: Yoyotte 1962, 91-101, 110-111; Habachi 1963; Leitz et al. 2002-2003, IV, 74). In the latter toponym, the panther-head has the value nbi , an early phonetic variant of , "panther" (Yoyotte 1962, 100-101; Schneider 1997, 266-267), perhaps ultimately related to <the sign for>, "panther (skin)" (cf. Wb . I, 7, 11; Yoyotte 1962, 101, n. 2; etymologically see also Kammerzell 1994: 31-37). The toponym Nebwy appears at least thrice with the panther-head alone ( or ), twice under Nectanebo II (CG 70016 and JE 89076; Habachi 1963, 43, fig. 1, 46, fig. 5 and Pl. VIIIb), and once in the Ptolemaic Period (Rochemonteix et al. 1984-1987: 388, 5-6; Yoyotte 1962, 110).
These late orthographies of a northern Nebwy suggest a possible read-ing Nbi.t or Nbwy.t for the Nag el-Hamdulab inscription toponym (), potentially an early attempt at writing the toponym Nbwy.t, "Kom Ombo" (Gutbub 1980: 676-676; Timm 1985: 1468-1470). Although little is known of Kom Ombo proper during the Old Kingdom or earlier, a number of tombs at the site date to the Middle Kingdom and later (Gomaa 1986, 29-30), and ample Predynastic through Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom archaeological and epigraphic material fills the area between Aswan and Kom Ombo ( cf. Gatto et al. 2009).
Even if the toponym is unrelated to the later name of Kom Ombo, the place name-and the focus of the activity depicted in the Nag el-Hamdulab cycle-could well be located at a site closer to Kom Ombo than to the later dominant First Nome center of Elephantine/Aswan. The comparatively late development of Elephantine as a seemingly modest settlement at the cusp of Naqada II and Dynasty 0 (Kopp 2006: 25-26 et passim), and the foundation of the fortress and larger center at the beginning of the First Dynasty (Seidl-mayer 1996; Wilkinson 1999: 345-346)-indications that <the panther symbol> was a development dependent on the expansion of the proto-pharaonic and then pharaonic state-suggest that the focus of a royal peregrination in the Aswan region at the dawn of the First Dynasty might have been at a site north of Elephantine/Aswan. Even after the elaboration of the late Predynastic site at the dawn of Dynasty 0, Elephantine and its greater area does not appear to have received any direct royal attention (Bußmann 2010: 460-463 and 494-496). The area of Kom Ombo and the region south thereof to Aswan formed a zone of hybrid Egyptian and Nubian cultures during the Predynastic and Protodynastic Periods (Gatto 2011; Roy 2011: 45 and 203-204).
Although in the inscriptions of Ankhtify, Kom Ombo appears after Elephantine as though a secondary center of the First Nome (Butzer 1976: 61 assesses surviving evidence to assign such secondary status to Kom Ombo), the reference on the Karnak White Chapel of Sesostris I to a temple of Horus (Haroeris?) in the First Upper Egyptian Nome has suggested to at least some that Kom Ombo may have been the original administrative center of the southernmost district (Gomaa 1986, 11; citing Martin-Pardey 1976: 196-197). Even the original name of Elephantine and the entire region remains uncertain, as the toponym <sic> appears first during the high Old Kingdom, and then apparently as a designation primarily of the island fortress (Roy 2011: 201). The terminal First Dynasty inscriptions of Qa-a in the vicinity of Elkab (Huyge 1984: 5-9) may be evidence that even as late as the end of First Dynasty, the southern border of the Hierakonpolitan region possessed the character of a southern boundary, perhaps administrative if not fully hegemonic. As late as the New Kingdom the entirety of the area south of Hierakonpolis retained some of the aspect of "foreignness" that its name TA -Sty implies, to judge by the fact that during the New Kingdom, the northern jurisdiction of the Vice-roy of Kush extended north to the regions of Elkab and the Wadi Baramiya (Davies 1926: pl. 6; Darnell 2013b: 824-825;)
The highlighted part again reinforces this "boundary" in history and culture even before the nation state itself was even created. When the fact is that most of the customs and rituals, from riverine craft, to kingship, to scepters and panther skins were a common tradition between all these Nile Valley and African groups since many thousands of years ago. Even when the older iconographic images that lead up to this pharaonic figure all come from further south to begin with. So it is one thing to talk of the first nation state establishing a border and another to ignore the fact that prior to that no border existed and the people were basically practicing a common set of related cultural and subsistence activities.
quote: After an hour, we arrived at a wadi (dry riverbed) lined with outcrops of crumbling sandstone. Daydreaming as soft tunes of Sudanese jazz crackled through the staticky radio, I snapped back to attention as something caught my eye: a white animal-like shape on one of the cliff faces. Wondering if it was the desert playing tricks on me, my doubts dissipated when we rounded a corner and stopped. Surrounding us, on every exposed surface of rock, were thousands of ancient petroglyphs depicting scenes of elephants, giraffes, ostriches and boats.
Keep in mind that the idea of a "strongman" having the power to unify groups into a larger collective certainly isn't new or unique in the Nile Valley during the predynastic. The problem is that those earlier strong men probably ruled over smaller territories and didn't have a writing system or iconography documenting their exploits. So this didn't just pop up at that arbitrary border with Aswan as the narrative around the formation of KMT implies in western scholarship.
In addition, just read the history of the Nile Valley as presented on the following page below, it is all over the place. They talk about "Egypt" 100,000 years ago. Come on. That provides clarity on nothing. When you talk of "Egypt" or "Sudan" or "Nubia" it implies a clear boundary whether culturally, geographically, or ethnically. But those things don't apply when going back 7 thousand, 8 thousand or more years ago. People roamed the lands freely and weren't limited by borders. That was true for most of human history. Roaming the land, hunting, gathering, looking for water was the norm. So talking of these various groups along the Nile in prehistory as "Egyptian" or "Sudanese" or whatever just misses the point. All of these groups migrating around from place to place eventually started to settle in the Nile Valley and that is the key. Once they became settled then you could have the development of organized settlements and hierarchies which would define borders and territories and lead to things like empires and conflict.
Ta Shemau (Upper Egypt) is distinct from Ta Khent (Sudan -- literally frontier/border) in various AE docs for over 3000 years just as Rt Rmtyw are distinct from Nehesu in said records.
Kerma Kush grew into a standard fully weaponized ancient empire. Napata Kush, with arms and armies forcibly conquered Egypt. Meroe Kush regularly marched to war at behest of "Ares" per Herodotus.
Ta Shemau (Upper Egypt) is distinct from Ta Khent (Sudan -- literally frontier/border) in various AE docs for over 3000 years just as Rt Rmtyw are distinct from Nehesu in said records.
Kerma Kush grew into a standard fully weaponized ancient empire. Napata Kush, with arms and armies forcibly conquered Egypt. Meroe Kush regularly marched to war at behest of "Ares" per Herodotus.
Yes and I don't disagree with those concepts in the context of the actual Dynastic state. But "Nubia" was never a politically unified entity before or during the Dynastic era. There were various entities along the Nile, but lumping them all together even with this concept of an "empire" as a single "Nubian" entity is just stretching it in order to big up something that Africans can be proud of, while keeping KMT as separate. Kerma was Kerma, Kush was Kush and Meroe was Meroe and yes, Kerma and Kush were powerful empires and states but they weren't "Nubian". They were just African just like KMT and other cultures within the continent. That is how I see it and will maintain that stance until Egyptology changes its obvious biases and distortions. And that is how I interpret this article. Because if we want to go by that, then "Nubia" is the oldest continuous civilization on earth, from Nabta Playa and Ta Seti all the way to Meroe in the Roman Era.
Note that not even in prehistory do these same people break up the Mesolithic, Neolithic and all other groups of prehistoric populations in Europe into "sub" groups and not just call them Europeans. But when it comes to the Nile, all of a sudden everybody is a distinct entity. That is just plain old nonsense. And they don't use terms like France in time frames 10 thousand years before France existed. They just call them Europeans. But for some reason they have a hard time calling these people Africans at any time in prehistory. Because if all of it is African history, then there is no need to 'big up' one part of it, separate from any other part.
And yes, I do believe that part of the reason for the Middle Kingdom going into the 3rd Cataract was because 1) the Middle Kingdom owed its rise to assistance from said populations further south and 2) because some other groups of Southerners also represented a threat because of their strength and 3) Many Middle Kingdom rulers were also from the South and recognized the threat to the throne due to claims from "strongmen" further South mustering armies. And ultimately this extended into the 3rd intermediate period when Upper KMT became a defacto separate entity from the North and was aligned with the states at Kush/Kerma.
quote: At the end of the New Kingdom, the Twentieth Dynasty priesthood of Amun is for a large part dominated by Ramessesnakht. His son, Amenhotep, eventually succeeded his father and found himself in conflict with the Viceroy of Kush, Panehesy. Panehesy took his troops north and besieged Thebes. After this period, generals by the name of Herihor and Piye served as High Priest. Herihor
By the time Herihor was proclaimed as the first ruling High Priest of Amun in 1080 BC—in the 19th Year of Ramesses XI—the Amun priesthood exercised an effective stranglehold on Egypt's economy. The Amun priests owned two-thirds of all the temple lands in Egypt and 90 percent of her ships plus many other resources.[6] Consequently, the Amun priests were as powerful as Pharaoh, if not more so. The High Priests of Amun were of such power and influence that they were effectively the rulers of Upper Egypt from 1080 to c. 943 BC, after which their influence declined. They are however not regarded as a ruling dynasty with pharaonic prerogatives, and after this period the influence of the Amun priesthood declined. One of the sons of the High Priest Pinedjem I would eventually assume the throne and rule Egypt for almost half a century as pharaoh Psusennes I, while the Theban High Priest Psusennes III would take the throne as king Psusennes II, the final ruler of the Twenty-first Dynasty of Egypt.
And we see at various points in time from the Middle Kingdom to the late period that Southerners played key roles both in times of crisis as antagonists and protagonists in the stability of the dynastic state. Having these people as part of the state only makes sense and that was the point of the preemptive engagements along the Nile and moving the border south, which has been effectively at Wadi Halfa/Abu Simbel since that time. And by the time of the New Kingdom, the dynastic state itself acknowledged that Kush was the origin of dynastic traditions of kingship at Jebel Barkal and promoted Amun as the Kushite deity, which started with the Southern kings of the Middle Kingdom (Amen/AmunHemaat/Son of Ta Seti). You certainly don't elevate peoples and cultures you deem inferior to having a key role in the state religion unless there is something more to it. At the end of the day the "strongmen" who formed the early states, kingdoms and empires on the Nile came from the South in Africa and all of these facts point to that.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: No. The point I responded to was Kush being a fake asz empire with a detailed definition of the Imperial Cycle from a vid on West African empires and a chart on Lower Nubia and Kush.
So who brought up ruthless barbarism as empire building strategy?
One polity takes over another one to start the cycle. The threat of armed conquest often quells resistance, staving war. That appears factual since armies aren't diplomats and polities don't yield self-hegemony willingly. People would continue to flock where the grass looked greener when able. Urban centers become more cosmopolitan attracting new foreigners.
So how would you describe Kerman Kush at time then? A confederacy?
Also, what made Africa different from say Eurasian states was that cities were centers of administration and trade but NOT control. This is why Egypt is popularly known as "a civilization without cities" because there were very few cities compared to Mesopotamia or Greece and the vast majority of the populace lived in villages.
quote:Kush-MK relations are complicated. Consider the origin of the dynasty. Buhen, a fortress refinery was the first of a chain of AE bldg projects in Lower Nubia at a time when Kush had yet to expand north in its imperial growth.
Uncertainty shadows Buhen's origins. Was it built due to events like on the Royal Annals Stone where the first notice of Nehesi is a pharaoh hacking them up, boasting 7000 POWs and 200,000 head herd mix.
That chart tables shifting Buhen control over several dynasties and shows it mostly in Nehesi hands until NK. What the chart doesn't explicitly show is the change of Nehesi hands from Lower to Upper Nubia but the timeline helps extrapolate approximately when. At that time if not ealier, Kush certainly became an empire.
Yes, and I don't know if you're aware of a theory among some in the Egyptology community that Kerma may have been founded or at least co-founded by Egyptian elites from Buhen. I think this theory was debunked some time ago but was based on the simple fact that Egyptian elites from Buhen did have commercial relations with elites from the burgeoning Kerma. That and the fact that craniometrically the Kermans were not that different from Naqada Egyptians.
quote:Interesting? Kerma Kush plans to destabilize Egypt for takeover. Well, before Napata Kush 'liberated' Egypt remember that record of Imperial Kush sacking south Upper Egypt just for kicks?
Yes, but if it wasn't the Kushites, it may have been some other Nehesi people.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Valid considerations Djehuti. Now we talkin Nubianology C'mon everybody lets get a rolling commentary going on.
quote:So how would you describe Kerman Kush at time then? A confederacy?
Middle Nubia Kush went from kingdom to empire. Lower Nubia Wawat went from state to federation or kingdom. That's how I see it. There's evidence Wawati contributed to Ancient Kerma. Presenting that in next post.
quote:Africa ... states ... cities were centers of administration and trade but NOT control.
I don't see it. When taxes are collected that's control. When farmland belongs to priesthood/nobility and tracts parceled out to even foreign mercenaries in the army, that's control. Administration controls infrastructure.
quote:Egypt is popularly known as "a civilization without cities" because there were very few cities compared to Mesopotamia or Greece
Mmmm, let's build a table to test that.
quote:Kerma may have been founded or at least co-founded by Egyptian elites from Buhen
[See timeline below] That's funny considering Kerma has a Neolithic stage Then there's a "pre-Kerma" before Ancient Kerma. I have no doubt Kerma employed AE professionals. I don't think those Egyptians who migrated to Kerma and dropped Egyptian citizenship as 'elite Egyptians'. Not anymore than elite Indians co-founded Silicon Valley. Good thing Nubianology is discipline separate from Egyptology. Nubia's no longer under the shadow of Egypt, it's its own entity.
quote:craniometrically the Kermans were not that different from Naqada Egyptians
But never forget elite Badari/Naqada differed from other Egyptians precisely in their similarities to Lower Nubians. That's why I hold Ta Seti as father to Ta Shemaw in the infancy of the royal Lower Nile Valley.
quote:if it wasn't the Kushites, it may have been some other Nehesi people
??? Isn't the record clear Kush "stirred up" all Ta Nehesi to attack Egypt?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
As promised Wawati element in founding Ancient Kerma. Rather than what's in the archive Camille Fallet Kerma Soudan 2011|3 Documents de la mission archeoloqique suiss au Sudan
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Valid considerations Djehuti. Now we talkin Nubianology C'mon everybody lets get a rolling commentary going on.
Yes please.
quote:Middle Nubia Kush went from kingdom to empire. Lower Nubia Wawat went from state to federation or kingdom. That's how I see it. There's evidence Wawati contributed to Ancient Kerma. Presenting that in next post.
So you consider Kush as 'Middle Nubia' instead of Upper Nubia. So I take it you consider southern Sudan as Upper Nubia that became part of their empire. I've always likened Nubia to Egypt in terms of their development with a Lower Nubia and Upper Nubia. Lower Nubia was formerly Ta-Seti then Wawat while Upper Nubia was formerly Yam then Kush.
quote:I don't see it. When taxes are collected that's control. When farmland belongs to priesthood/nobility and tracts parceled out to even foreign mercenaries in the army, that's control. Administration controls infrastructure.
I agree though this control or administration was freely given by the people to their leaders in exchange for protection both militarily and spiritually. Also as our former mod Ausar pointed out there was a system of checks and balances. The federal government depended on the Sepati that acted as self governing states themselves with the priesthoods acting as go between.
quote:Mmmm, let's build a table to test that.
Such a moniker "civilization without cities" one coined by the archaeologists from back in the day how accurate that is is up to debate.
quote:[See timeline below] That's funny considering Kerma has a Neolithic stage Then there's a "pre-Kerma" before Ancient Kerma. I have no doubt Kerma employed AE professionals. I don't think those Egyptians who migrated to Kerma and dropped Egyptian citizenship as 'elite Egyptians'. Not anymore than elite Indians co-founded Silicon Valley. Good thing Nubianology is discipline separate from Egyptology. Nubia's no longer under the shadow of Egypt, it's its own entity.
Hey, I said the theory is debunked. It's old Egyptology prejudice that [negro] Kushite civilization couldn't come about without the [caucasian] Egyptians.
quote:But never forget elite Badari/Naqada differed from other Egyptians precisely in their similarities to Lower Nubians. That's why I hold Ta Seti as father to Ta Shemaw in the infancy of the royal Lower Nile Valley.
No disagreement here.
quote:??? Isn't the record clear Kush "stirred up" all Ta Nehesi to attack Egypt?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
quote:
Model of Center City Kerma
Yes. Nice.
quote: As promised Wawati element in founding Ancient Kerma. Rather than what's in the archive Camille Fallet Kerma Soudan 2011|3 Documents de la mission archeoloqique suiss au Sudan
Yes, that's not surprising. Wawati was part of the Kushite empire too.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Bumping true veteran Brandon's thread for its OP and various maps, timeline, and essays in it.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic