The artifacts speak: Ancient Qustul (Ta-Seti) - Egypt's Origin
King Merenptah
Egyptians had called Ta-Seti - "Land of the Bow." Here in this remote corner of
Africa, an elegant and cosmopolitan culture had flourished centuries before the
pyramids were built.
Discovery of a variety of artifacts led to the startling conclusions.
It had been found by archaeologist Keith C. Seele in 1964. Originally, Qustul
was judged to be one of the least promising areas. Seele spent most of his time
in Nubia excavating other areas. When he finally turned his attention to
Qustul, in his very last digging season in Nubia, Seele discovered a cemetery
of thirty-three tombs.
Twelve of the tombs were tremendous, each one large enough to have served a
predynastic Egyptian king.
Tombs of this size, wealth and date in Egypt would have been immediately
recognized as royal. Their extraordinarily varied contents would have been
taken as evidence of a complex culture exposed to wide outside connections. But
because the discovery was made in Nubia at a time and place when kingship was
thought impossible, further proof of royalty is necessary.
What was really surprising was the age of the tombs. The cemetery clearly dated
from the time of the so-called A-Group - a prehistoric people believed to have
dominated lower Nubia from about 3800 to 3100 B.C.
Of all the numerous items discovered, the most significant were found in an
A-Group grave site, called Cemetery L, which yielded artifacts that were
created six to seven generations (approximately 200 years) before the start of
the First Dynasty in Egypt, 3150 B.C.
All told, more than 1,000 complete and fragmentary painted pots, and over 100
stone vessels. The range of these and other fragments from the plundered
cemetery began to indicate a wealth and complexity that could only be called
royal.
In addition to huge quantities of native pottery, the tombs were filled with
bottles, flasks, bowls, and large storage jars from Egypt - many inscribed with
hieroglyphs. There were also vessels from Syria-Palestine of a type that had
never been found in Egypt and that may have indicated a direct trade link
between Nubia and Asia.
These findings included five major groups:
1 - items probably from Sudan
2 - items very similar to a culture previously know as C-Group, which was found
in Nubia and in Egypt up to the New Kingdom (2300 - 1500 B.C.)
3 - Egyptian pottery, some of which had early forms of hieroglyphic writing
4 - items from the Levant (Syria and Palestine area)
5 - badly damaged objects of Egyptian and Sudanese origin
It was in one of these graves - coded "L-24" by the excavators - that the
mysterious incense burner came to light.
An incense burner with crude figures and pictographs gouged deep into the clay.
The inscription showed three ships sailing in procession. The three ships were
sailing toward the royal palace. One of the ships carried a lion - perhaps a
diety. This piece had been made no later than 3300 B.C. At that early date,
there were not supposed to have been any such things as pharaohs or pharaohs'
palaces. Moreover, the piece had not even been found in Egypt. It had come from
Qustul, located just north of the Sudanese border. The censer, in short was
Nubian.
If Williams's restoration was correct this censer had been inscribed with
nothing less than the earliest known portrait of a pharaoh ever discovered.
Why, then, had it turned up in Nubia rather than Egypt? Such censers simply do
not appear in Egypt. Could the earliest pharaoh have actually been Nubian?
This was not Egyptian art. This censer had been found, not in Egypt, but nearly
200 miles deep in Nubia. Moreover, for the time the censer was made,
archaeologists had found no trace in Egypt of any other inscription showing
such a clear use of royal emblems such as the White Crown, the Horus falcon,
the serekh, and the rosette.
…when the incense burner was reexamined in the light of the obviously royal
stature of people buried in Cemetery L, the essential restoration of the
missing elements was immediately clear. In the first ship, a prisoner is
kneeling on a palanquin or litter held by a rope in the grasp of a guard with a
mace…the white crown of Upper Egypt clearly stands out above the ship. In
front of it is the tail of a falcon - another sign of kingship. The crown
indicates that the figure is a king, and the falcon should be seen as perched
on a serekh, together a characteristic representation in early dynastic Egypt.
In front of the falcon is a rosette, symbol of royalty before the First
Dynasty…
Its date provided by context, style and composition, the Qustul burner
furnishes the earliest definite representation of a king in the Nile Valley or
anywhere…Perhaps the most troublesome question was why nothing of this
kingdom had been known until now. Actually, the truth is the evidence, other
than the cemetery at Qustul, has been known for some time but it has been
either ignored or wrongly interpreted and dated.
When the Qustul incense burner was subjected to geochemical analysis, it was
found to be made from a distinctive mineral typically found at Nubian sites
such as Aswan, Kalabsha, and Meroe. Did it seem plausible that Egyptians would
have quarried Nubian stone, transported it back to Egypt, carved it into a
distinctly Nubian style of incense burner, then export the censer back to
Nubia? Probably not.
But if the Nubians were organized in a kingdom as early as 3300 B.C., why had
no previous evidence been found for this mysterious African state? In fact, it
had. Egyptologists had simply failed to grasp the significance of this
evidence.
The Nubian desert, for example abounded with rock drawings from roughly the
same period as the Qustul incense burner, many showing distinctly "Egyptian"
themes and symbols.
Ivory seals from the A-Group period had been found featuring kingly serekhs. A
mud seal impression found at Siali - also dating from the A-Group period -
showed a man saluting a serekh surmounted by a falcon. The serekh was actually
labeled with a bow - the hieroglyphic emblem for Ta-Seti, Land of the Bow -
implying that the man was paying homage to a Nubian state. One bowl from Qustul
even showed vultures tearing at a fallen enemy who is labeled with the signs
for Ta-Shemau - Upper Egypt - possibly indicating that the Nubians had defeated
Upper Egypt in battle.
Every one of these inscriptions had been found in Nubia. Yet experts had always
assumed that they referred to an Egyptian monarchy, rather than a Nubian one.
Why, then, should experts assume that every recognizable symbol of royal
authority found in that country would be of foreign origin? Some critics
insisted that the Qustul censer must have been an Egyptian import, despite the
fact that it was a typically Nubian object made of indisputably Nubian stone.
For nine generations or more, according to the sequence of tombs in Cemetery L,
some 12 kings at Qustul participated with other kings in Upper Egypt in the
creation of a unified culture. For Egypt, they helped fashion pharaonic
civilization and thus a legacy for the First Dynasty which the world has
marveled at for millennia. For Nubia, they established an early political unit
and led that country to its first cultural distinction.
Seele speculated that the tombs might be royal, evidence of a long-lost dynasty
of Nubian kings. Unfortunately, this theory flew in the face of conventional
opinion. Seele's theory was subjected to the worst fate known to academia - the
silent treatment.
Following his discovery, several major scholarly works were published on
Nubia's A-Group culture. But none made even passing reference to the mysterious
Cemetery L. For more than ten years, Cemetery L was ignored as completely as if
its treasures lay, still unexcavated, at the bottom of Lake Nasser.
Seele died of cancer without ever seeing his theory vindicated. Seele had gone
to his grave believing that Nubian kings lay buried in Cemetery L. But he had
never imagined that those kings might have been pharaohs, arraying themselves
in all the formal regalia of an Egyptian monarch.
As a result of the reexamination of data concerning ancient Nubia, many
scholars have concluded that the Nubians were an extremely sophisticated people
who built cities, roads, and temples comparable to those of the people of Egypt
in the north. It has even been suggested by one researcher that there were more
pyramids constructed in Nubia than in Egypt.
Ivan Van Sertima stated on Williams conclusions:
What is equally significant is the more recent discovery that there was some
pharaonic-type civilization developing parallel to Egypt through the centuries.
Bruce Williams, in a letter to me in 1984, maintained that a Kushite continuity
sustained the pharaonic impulse through the ages, from A-group (3300 B.C.)
right through to X-Group (550 A.D.). This, to put it in his own words,
'represents a new departure in the examination of Egypt's place in the African
context.
The rich graves of the A-Group kings contained gold jewelry, beautiful pottery,
and stone vessels…that rivaled the wealth of the Egyptian kings. Many of
these luxury objects were Near Eastern or Egyptian, indicating that the A-Group
carried on extensive trade with those areas.
In time, the Egyptian and Nubian kingdoms became enemies, and the Egyptian
kings, the same ones who built the pyramids, invaded Nubia. The Egyptians
conquered the A-Group and ruled the 'Land of the Bow' as a colony.
However, south of the Third Cataract - beyond the area of Egyptian control, the
Nubians remained independent and continued to grow strong.
The debate over how old dynastic Egypt was, will continue…but it is important
to note two things in this connection. One, it further invalidates any claim to
Sumerian or Mesopotamian primacy or any significant influence on the Egyptians
of the pyramid age - the earliest hard dating of materials found at Ur, the
first Sumerian city-state, is 2600 B.C., whereas the most conservative date for
the first Egyptian dynasty is 3100 B.C.
Two, it does not affect the dating of the first pharaonic dynasty in Nubia
since the methods used to arrive at that dating would still place Ta-Seti at
least 200 years before the first Egyptian dynasty (whatever that date may be).
Discussion with Dr. Bruce Williams has established that very clearly.
Current evidence indicates that the Nubians and Egyptians may be ethnically the
same with cultures coming from similar sources.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of further archaeological study at Qustul, or any
other site in Nubia, is all but impossible became many of the primary areas of
investigation now lie under 250 feet of water, at the bottom of Lake Nasser.
This man-made lake covers an area of approximately 1,550 square miles, and it
is the second largest man-made lake in the world.
During the construction of the Aswan High Dam (1960 - 1968) and the subsequent
creation of Lake Nasser, 40 Nubian villages were relocated further inland.
Thousands of Nubians were resettled in and around the city of Aswan and in
villages further north; however, an untold number drowned when they refused to
leave the lands that their ancestors had occupied for more than 5,000 years.
[Nubian Rescue by Rex Keating) writes:
All 23 temples and shrines were saved and re-erected elsewhere. Four of them,
from Egypt, went overseas; the temple of Dendur now stands in New York's
Metropolitan Museum of Fine Art, Taffeh has come to rest in Holland where it
may be seen at Leyden, Ellesyn is in Turin and Debod at Madrid. In 1969 the
archaeological survey team working in the Sudan reached the Dal Cataract, the
extreme southern limit affected by Lake Nasser. Their work had ended and a year
later the last two expeditions in Sudanese Nubia were forced by the rising
waters to leave. By 1971 Nubia had passed into history. The cost was
$41,774,458. Governments were cajoled while radio and film, television and the
press were tempted into playing their part in the world pattern of mass
persuasion to save Abu Simbel. And it worked.
The decision to build the High Dam was basically humanitarian, not political as
has been so often represented. The generating capacity of its 12 turbines is in
excess of Egypt's foreseeable needs for years to come. The reservoir behind the
dam (known as Lake Nasser) is long and narrow, covering an area of three
thousand square miles and extending across two hundred miles of Egyptian
territory and a hundred miles over the border into the Sudan, and it will bring
two million more acres of land under cultivation.
In addition to the displacement of human beings, a total of 18 ancient temples
were dismantled and relocated. These temples were presented as gifts to those
nations that assisted in the construction of the Aswan High Dam.
There is no way to estimate the total number of temples and tombs which now lie
at the bottom of Lake Nasser, nor is there any way of knowing the many secrets
these structures currently hold. Because of the creation of the Aswan Dam, the
world will never have an opportunity to study the full impact Africans from the
southern Nile Valley had on the development of ancient Egypt and subsequent
civilizations.
Sources:
African Peoples Contributions to World Civilizations, by Paul L. Hamilton
Nile Valley Contributions to Civilization by Anthony T. Browder
The Lost Pharoahs of Nubia by Bruce Williams
Black Spark, White Fire by Richard Poe
Nubian Rescue by Rex Keating
King Merenptah
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Most recently, Josef Wegner in his "Interaction by the Nubian A-Group
and Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Burner", in T.
Celenko (ed.),_Egypt in Africa_, (Indianapolis Museum of
Art:Indianapolis, 1996) saw the evidence of the burner as evidence of
trade only, saying:
"...The evidence from Umm el Gabb [Abydos] demonstrates that not only
pharaonic kingship, but also the primary elements of a centralized state
system, including writing and a complex administrative and governmental
apparatus, were evolving in Egypt for several centuries _prior_ to the
1st Dynasty. Although Classic/Terminal A-Group society has been shown
to be more complex and politically organized than previously thought
(O'Connor: 1991; 1993:20-23), there is no comparable evidence for the
long-term development of such institutions in the A-Group (Also Adams:
1985). The A-Group civilization and adaptation of pharaonic imagery and
use of Egyptian style royal titulary and possibly hieroglyphic symbols
in connection with the kingship emerged full-blown in the
Classi/Terminal period. The development of pharaonic iconography and
symbols, and the hieroglyphic writing system is firmly rooted in
indigenous cultural and social processes in Egypt. There is thus no
evidence to support the contention that the A-Group culture was the
fount of the institutions of pharaonic kingship.
<...>
The participation and political emergence of the A-Group does not,
however, indicate either the Nubian development of the iconography and
institution of pharaonic kingship or the A-Group conquest and
unification of Egypt. On the contrary, the Classic/Terminal A-Group
period in Lower Nubia is the final phase of a long-lived culture that
had evolved over the course of nearly a thousand years. Contemporary
with the final unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty,
the A-Group disappeared completely -- erased in the prime of its
development. Lower Nubia was depopulated for over 300 years, until the
emergence of the C-Group culture...This eradication of the A-Group
culture becomes extremely difficult to explain if the A-Group kings
themselves were the cultural progenitors of the pharaonic civilization."
(Wegner 1996: 98-99)
Wegner noted in his article on Nubia for the University of
Pennsylvania's "Searching for Ancient Egypt" exhibit:
"...Many items of Egyptian as well as Near Eastern origin were found in
the tombs indicating that the A-Group had substantial trade links. The
classic A-Group kings also made use of Egyptian-style iconography which
suggests they interacted with the development of pre-dynastic kingdoms
in late Predynastic Egypt." [_Searching for Ancient Egypt_, David
O'Connor and David Silverman [ed.], (Cornell University Press/Dallas
Museum of Art, 1997), p. 295.
As O'Connor pointed out, in the section cited by Wegner, about the
Qustul burner:
"Williams' theory is exciting, but the evidence for it is not
convincing. At the time his theory was published, the Qustul 'royal'
tombs antedated the earliest royal tombs of Egypt, of Nakada phase IIIb.
But recently an Abydos royal tomb of IIIA has been found [Tomb of U-j -
KGG], so Qustul loses chronological primacy.
There are unusual objects in Egyptian style at Qustul, but they are all
likely to have been imports from Egypt, not products of Nubia. Two
vessels, for example, have painted designs, according to Williams, the
conquest of southern Egypt (Ta shemau) and of Hierakanopolis, a town of
that region; but the worn signs may be misread, and in any case would
refer to conquests by the Egyptians _by_ Egyptians, since the vases are
of Egyptian origin.
A stone incense burner [the Qustul burner - KGG] is of special
importance. It was carved with motifs Egyptian in style and content
(including a depiction of a pharaoh in a traditional crown), yet incense
burners are typical of Nubia, not Egypt. Surely it, and therefore its
pharaonic iconography, are Nubian in origin, Williams argued. But it is
more plausible (because of the thoroughly A-Group or Nubian character of
the Qustul cemetery) to suggest that the incense burner was made in
Egypt, or decorated by Egyptian artisans, as a special gift for the
ruler of Qustul of the day.
The real importance of the Qustul cemetery is that the size and richness
of the graves indicate rulers (possibly 3 to 8; Williams suggests 10-12)
were buried there, together with their high-status kinfolk. Moreover,
because no other Terminal A-Group cemetery approached the importance of
the Qustul cemetery, its occupants likely controlled all of Lower
Nubia, which would have formed a unitary political unit. In
geographical and population size, this entity would have been a complex
chiefdom and not a state, but its rulers were sufficiently high in
status to be called 'kings.'
Already then, early in the Bronze Age, at least one part of Nubia was on
its way to statehood, and was a 'proto-kingdom' like those found earlier
in Egypt. Moreover, earlier -- in the classic A-Group -- there were
also rulers, like the one buried in an elite cemetery labeled 137, with
two maces -- symbols of kingly power imported from Egypt. Their handles
were sheathed in gold and decorated, in one case, with rows of animals.
Whether such Classic A-Group chiefs ruled only parts of Lower Nubia or
all of it, they indicate that political centralization was becoming a
feature of Nubian society prior to the development of the royal cemetery
at Qustul.
The End of the A-Group
Early in the Egyptian 1st Dynasty, the A-Group ended and the Nubians
were driven from Lower Nubia, not to return for about 6 centuries. This
can only have been due to organized Egyptian aggression, intended to
place this trade corridor, and the source of valuable stones and gold
(in flanking deserts), under direct Egyptian control.
The Egyptians not only prevented Nubian resettlement; early in the 4th
Dynasty (ca. 2500 BC) they founded in Lower Nubia several strategically
placed towns, such as Buhen. These improved Egypt's access to Lower
Nubian mineral sources and perhaps reflect an increased volume of trade
with Upper Nubia. However, some 160 years later Egypt abandoned these
towns, and Nubians began to resettle Lower Nubia..." (O'Connor 1993:
20-23)
O'Connor, D. 1993. _Ancient Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa_.
Philadelphia: University Museum/ Univ. of Pennsylvania.
Samuel Mark, in his _From Egypt to Mesopotamia: A Study of Predynastic
Trade Routes_ (cited above), also pointed out the following problems
with Williams' chronology of the Qustul burner as preceding development
of the Egyptian culture in Egypt:
a) The L 24 tomb in which the Qustul burner was found was dated by
Williams to Naqada IIIa is based upon fragments of pots, which is
assigned that date by Williams due to a questionable dating of a find of
a knife in a tomb at Azor in Palestine. When based upon the styling of
the jugs and pots alone, the date of the burner is set to 3100 BCE
[First Dynasty].
b) Within the L 24 tomb, 3 types of pot stands were found. Williams
proposes a Naqada IIIa dating, although the archaeological review on the
items shows these to be of Dynasty I design.
c) A shallow bowl fragment and a portion of a cylinder jar with wavy
lines were also found in L 24. Williams argues again for a Naqada IIIa
dating for these items, but the shallow stone bowl design was produced
only in the First Dynasty, as well as the cylinder jar (although a
possible earlier development of the cylinder jar is noted).
d) The "linchpin" to Williams' argument for an earlier dating,
however, for the burner and all L 24 items requires acceptance of a
theory for an earlier dating of a mummified arm recovered from the tomb
of Djer [third pharaoh of the First Dynasty], proposing that this arm
was stolen from a Naqada IIIa tomb and moved to Djer's tomb in Abydos.
He bases this conjecture on one bracelet found on the arm, decorated
with serekhs and a falcon perched on top (which is suggested as a part
of the possible reconstruction of the Qustul burner). Based upon his
review of the style, he proposes that this motif was no longer used by
Djer's time and must have come from an earlier tomb. [Petrie, contra,
dates the same bracelet to early in the reign of Djer, based upon
evidence discussed below].
However, Williams does not take into account that _other items found in
Djer's tomb_ also contained plaques of similar design made of lapis
lazuli and ivory which parallel the gold and turquoise plaques found on
the bracelet, and are, again, datable to the First Dynasty.
This is also compounded by the fact that the arm was found wrapped in
linen, which was part of the mummification process of the First Dynasty,
but was not part of the Naqada IIIa period.
Finally, there exists iconography in Egypt for the serekh, falcon, and
other images found on the Qustul burner, which predate the Naqada IIIa
period. Mark sums up these points by saying
"According to the archaeological evidence from L 24, then, it seems that
the tomb should be dated to the early First Dynasty, as should the
Qustul burner. Therefore, based upon the evidence, the Nubian incense
burners, the Scorpion macehead, and the Metropolitan Museum [Gebel el
Arak] knife handle all date to the unification of Egypt or later." [pp.
112-115].
IOW, the influence of Egypt is TO the Qustul burner as a matter of a
traded item, and NOT as evidence of an origin point, in Mark's view.
Archaeologically, it has been shown that social stratification necessary
to create a "kingship" concept was not present in ancient Nubian culture
until after the beginning of the dynastic period, by which time the
kingship system was well-established.* Hoffman in his _Egypt Before the
Pharaohs_, (New York, 1979) presented the archaeological evidence [ as
evidenced by the creation of elite tombs of greater size and valuables]
that shows the influence went from Egypt to Nubia in the concept of the
"divine king" as opposed to your statement. He notes:
"In Lower Nubia [/Sudan], however, this social order did not emerge.
The society remained more or less egalitarian until the impact of Egypt
was felt directly. For example, Reisner's successor in Nubia, C.M.
Firth, excavated what appears to be the earliest example of a 'chiefly'
grave in Lower Nubia in the late Gerzean[/Naqada II] or Protodynastic
times (ca 3300-3100 BC). At Cemetery 137 Firth discovered a group of
rectangular graves roofed by large sandstone slabs. Many appear to have
served as family tombs, since a number of burials were found inside.
One grave in particular was comparatively rich, boasting many heavy
copper axes, chisels, and bar ingots; several stone vases, a dipper of
banded slate, a lion's head of rose quartz, covered with green faience
glaze, a mica mirror, two maces with gold-plated handles and two large
bird-shaped palettes (Firth, 1927: 206 and Trigger, 1965:75). Judging
from the style of animals on one of the mace handles and the
round-toppoed variety of ther adz, the grave can be dated to the early
part of the First Dynasty -- the very moment when Egypt was undergoing
unification. But compared to contemporary graves in Egypt, this tomb is
poor indeed and a late expression of emerging social-economic class
distinctions; and there is clearly an attempt to import the ritual
paraphernalia already associated with emergent Egyptian kingship (e.g.,
the maceheads and palette)." [Hoffman, 1979: 260]
Hoffman cites Trigger as to why this social stratification was limited
in lower Nubia even in Protodynastic times, and can be summarized as
follows:
a) no opportunities for the land in Lower Nubia to acquire any special
value which would develop a public authority and the state;
b) At most Nubian chieftains appeared to have served as tribute/toll
takers along the riverside, controlling the passage of trade up the Nile
in regional fashion. While this may have placed them, by their wealth,
at the apex of their immediate society, it was enough to support their
immediate retainers, and not in a state or overall public authoritative
function.
c) In other cases, Trigger believes the Nubian chieftain served as do
their modern contemporaries, the village omdahs, as a "first among
equals. In any case, the power which any of these chiefs was limited
both in terms of area and authority."
["History and Settlement in Lower Nubia", Bruce Trigger, Yale
University, 1965, Publications in Anthropology 69: 75]
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
http://www.griffis-consulting.com
On 12 Apr 2004 10:00:29 GMT, kingme...@aol.com (King Merenptah) in
soc.history.ancient, wrote the following:
King Merenptah
>From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egy...@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com
>Date: 4/12/2004 2:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <jspk70hndglgcmu43...@4ax.com>
>
>The Qustul evidence is very tenuous and highly interpreted, however.
>Most recently, Josef Wegner in his "Interaction by the Nubian A-Group
>and Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Burner", in T.
>Celenko (ed.),_Egypt in Africa_, (Indianapolis Museum of
>Art:Indianapolis, 1996) saw the evidence of the burner as evidence of
>trade only, saying:
No, your citation needs updating. The burner as "evidence of trade only" is
simply your imagination. There are many other factors to consider to simply
shrug it off as some indication of trade only. That argument does not apply
here, and I have you Katherine to thank for leading me to this very important
area.
>"...The evidence from Umm el Gabb [Abydos] demonstrates that not only
>pharaonic kingship, but also the primary elements of a centralized state
>system, including writing and a complex administrative and governmental
>apparatus, were evolving in Egypt for several centuries _prior_ to the
>1st Dynasty.
Once again, I think you failed to read the entire post as there are other
points to consider. Simply cutting and pasting doesn't count for scholarship,
Katherine.
<snip>
The development of pharaonic iconography and
>symbols, and the hieroglyphic writing system is firmly rooted in
>indigenous cultural and social processes in Egypt. There is thus no
>evidence to support the contention that the A-Group culture was the
>fount of the institutions of pharaonic kingship.
Outdated citation. The development of iconography and symbols found in the
tombs of ancient Nubia (Qustul), as well as evidence to support that contention
is within the rest of this post. You didn't read it obviously.
><...>
>
>The participation and political emergence of the A-Group does not,
>however, indicate either the Nubian development of the iconography and
>institution of pharaonic kingship or the A-Group conquest and
>unification of Egypt.
I highlighted the evidence and pointed out the contrary, but you again failed
to prove otherwise. You play the "cut-n-past" game.
On the contrary, the Classic/Terminal A-Group
>period in Lower Nubia is the final phase of a long-lived culture that
>had evolved over the course of nearly a thousand years. Contemporary
>with the final unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty,
>the A-Group disappeared completely -- erased in the prime of its
>development. Lower Nubia was depopulated for over 300 years, until the
>emergence of the C-Group culture...This eradication of the A-Group
>culture becomes extremely difficult to explain if the A-Group kings
>themselves were the cultural progenitors of the pharaonic civilization."
>(Wegner 1996: 98-99)
Actually, several events took place during the phase of Egypt's first dynasty.
Since the Narmer tablet reveals the conquest of an enemy, namely the Nubians
during this time documented on the tablet itself, proves another culture
existed already, the ancient Nubians of Ta-Seti. Secondly, the ancient
Egyptians needed more than anything, a stronger army which they received in
victory, among other things. How are you a consultant and don't already know
some of these things?
Thirdly, the civilization of Kerma has a link to the A-Group in many
similarities, the eradication was not total elimination. Hence the C-Group
centuries later. Stronger. No history lessons here though, you know the way to
the library.
>Wegner noted in his article on Nubia for the University of
>Pennsylvania's "Searching for Ancient Egypt" exhibit:
>
>"...Many items of Egyptian as well as Near Eastern origin were found in
>the tombs indicating that the A-Group had substantial trade links. The
>classic A-Group kings also made use of Egyptian-style iconography which
>suggests they interacted with the development of pre-dynastic kingdoms
>in late Predynastic Egypt." [_Searching for Ancient Egypt_, David
>O'Connor and David Silverman [ed.], (Cornell University Press/Dallas
>Museum of Art, 1997), p. 295.
"...which suggests they interacted with the development of pre-dynastic
kingdoms in late Predynastic Egypt." Exactly my point. The A-Group people
interacted with the DEVELOPMENT of pre-dynastic kingdoms in late Predynastic
Egypt. You finally used a quote that substantiates what I'm saying here.
>
>As O'Connor pointed out, in the section cited by Wegner, about the
>Qustul burner:
>
>"Williams' theory is exciting, but the evidence for it is not
>convincing. At the time his theory was published, the Qustul 'royal'
>tombs antedated the earliest royal tombs of Egypt, of Nakada phase IIIb.
>But recently an Abydos royal tomb of IIIA has been found [Tomb of U-j -
>KGG], so Qustul loses chronological primacy.
Katherine. (!!!sigh!!!) The Qustul burner does not lose anything, are you on
cough syrup or something? I'll repeat, you did not take the time to consider
much of the evidence pointed out here, you simply cut and pasted where you
thought it made sense. Good grief, that isn't scholarship.
>There are unusual objects in Egyptian style at Qustul, but they are all
>likely to have been imports from Egypt, not products of Nubia.
By the way Katherine, who are the objects imported to, the enemies? This is
funny.
Two
>vessels, for example, have painted designs, according to Williams, the
>conquest of southern Egypt (Ta shemau) and of Hierakanopolis, a town of
>that region; but the worn signs may be misread, and in any case would
>refer to conquests by the Egyptians _by_ Egyptians, since the vases are
>of Egyptian origin.
Katherine, this is sad. Egyptology 101, take it.
>A stone incense burner [the Qustul burner - KGG] is of special
>importance. It was carved with motifs Egyptian in style and content
>(including a depiction of a pharaoh in a traditional crown), yet incense
>burners are typical of Nubia, not Egypt. Surely it, and therefore its
>pharaonic iconography, are Nubian in origin, Williams argued. But it is
>more plausible (because of the thoroughly A-Group or Nubian character of
>the Qustul cemetery) to suggest that the incense burner was made in
>Egypt, or decorated by Egyptian artisans, as a special gift for the
>ruler of Qustul of the day.
A special gift is considered a TRIBUTE to a King or Pharaoh. Here now are the
intellectual acrobatics Katherine will now go through to explain their
position? Here is where Katherine is going to explain to everyone who the
"ruler of Qustul of the day" is so that we once and for all know who the
Pharaoh was in ancient Nubia, or Egypt's founding father of Predynastic Egypt?
Prey tell.
>unification. But compared to contemporary graves in Egypt, this tomb is
>poor indeed and a late expression of emerging social-economic class
>distinctions; and there is clearly an attempt to import the ritual
>paraphernalia already associated with emergent Egyptian kingship (e.g.,
>the maceheads and palette)." [Hoffman, 1979: 260]
<snip>
HOFFMAN, Hoffman, Hoffman...you quoted him before. After researching his
position, we learn that he states to learn about the Ancient Egyptians, one
finds an African substratum. Exactly, Hoffman states that himself. So do you
want to continue using this scholar for your references, Katherine?
>Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
>Member, International Association of Egyptologists
> American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA
>
>Oriental Institute
>Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
>Oxford University
>Oxford, United Kingdom
King Merenptah - next time read the entire text before cutting and pasting,
please! And answer the questions, directly...can you do that?
>
>On 12 Apr 2004 09:51:51 GMT, kingme...@aol.com (King Merenptah) in
>alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
King Merenptah
>Date: 4/12/2004 3:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <KrudnR7TG9l...@comcast.com>
>
>
>"King Merenptah" <kingme...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040412072121...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: The artifacts speak: Ancient Qustul (Ta-Seti) - Egypt's
>Founder
>> >From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>egy...@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com
>> >Date: 4/12/2004 2:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <jspk70hndglgcmu43...@4ax.com>
>> >
>> >The Qustul evidence is very tenuous and highly interpreted, however.
>> >Most recently, Josef Wegner in his "Interaction by the Nubian A-Group
>> >and Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Burner", in T.
>> >Celenko (ed.),_Egypt in Africa_, (Indianapolis Museum of
>> >Art:Indianapolis, 1996) saw the evidence of the burner as evidence
>of
>> >trade only, saying:
>>
>> No, your citation needs updating. The burner as "evidence of trade
>only" is
>> simply your imagination. There are many other factors to consider to
>simply
>> shrug it off as some indication of trade only. That argument does not
>apply
>> here, and I have you Katherine to thank for leading me to this very
>important
>> area.
>
>
>You know, boats, travel, trade...
>http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/qustul.gif
>http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/Egyptgallery07.html
Your example of the incense burner and its representation is a good one. It
clearly shows a pharoah sitting on a throne facing SOUTH, with a depiction of
Horus too, while the boat in front of him is facing North with two occupants,
one sitting and one standing, sailing to a Temple, namely Egypt.
And this was found WHERE? Qustul Nubia, South of Egypt - where the first signs
of royalty are now preserved and well documented.
This post creates many problems for the traditional Egyptologists I know.
King Merenptah
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
alt.culture.egyptian, wrote the following:
>>Subject: Re: The artifacts speak: Ancient Qustul (Ta-Seti) - Egypt's Founder
>>From: "Jon Erlandson" jerl...@comcast.net
>>Date: 4/12/2004 3:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <KrudnR7TG9l...@comcast.com>
>>
>>
>>"King Merenptah" <kingme...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20040412072121...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>>> >Subject: Re: The artifacts speak: Ancient Qustul (Ta-Seti) - Egypt's
>>Founder
>>> >From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>>egy...@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com
>>> >Date: 4/12/2004 2:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: <jspk70hndglgcmu43...@4ax.com>
>>> >
>>> >The Qustul evidence is very tenuous and highly interpreted, however.
>>> >Most recently, Josef Wegner in his "Interaction by the Nubian A-Group
>>> >and Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Burner", in T.
>>> >Celenko (ed.),_Egypt in Africa_, (Indianapolis Museum of
>>> >Art:Indianapolis, 1996) saw the evidence of the burner as evidence
>>of
>>> >trade only, saying:
>>>
>>> No, your citation needs updating. The burner as "evidence of trade
>>only" is simply your imagination. There are many other factors to consider to
>>simply shrug it off as some indication of trade only. That argument does not
>>apply here, and I have you Katherine to thank for leading me to this very
>>important area.
I suggest you read more, then, for it's not in MY imagination, as I
provided no less than 2 other interpretations of the burner from
Egyptologists other than myself.
Erlandson noted:
>>Interesting that the image from the burner features three boats.
>>You know, boats, travel, trade...
>>http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/qustul.gif
>>http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/Egyptgallery07.html
>
>Your example of the incense burner and its representation is a good one. It
>clearly shows a pharoah sitting on a throne facing SOUTH, with a depiction of
>Horus too, while the boat in front of him is facing North with two occupants,
>one sitting and one standing, sailing to a Temple, namely Egypt.
>
>And this was found WHERE? Qustul Nubia, South of Egypt - where the first signs
>of royalty are now preserved and well documented.
And directionality you determined how? The Qustul burner was circular
in form (I've seen the original, where apparently you have not), and so
the _direction_ of the boats (and your interpretation) is quite
questionable.
I could just as easily argue that since the sail on the second boat is
fully unfurled and taut, IT is traveling south against the current
(which is how sails are utilised this day in Egypt). Egyptians do not
use sails to float with the current, that is, north.
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom