> Northeast Africa. Indigenous. Always there.
"Indigenous/always there" is relative as at some point they were not with the caucasoid populations of North Africa obviously originating outside of Africa which all indicators point to the Levant/greater Mesopotamia. This should be common sense to you as well as the fact this would not have been a "one and done" proposition which as populations grew and cultures advanced, say like with the invention of boats, such migration and cross-cultural contact would only become more frequent.
> > human activity along the Nile between roughly
> > 9,000-6,000BC was surprisingly sparse
> On what do you base this sparseness? Under what
> circumstances do you propose the Nile valley was
> sparsely populated
I base this "sparseness" on the stated archaeological record reported by Egyptologists:
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Ian Shaw editor:
After the Late Paleolithic, there was a hiatus in the occupation of the Nile Valley. No human presence has between attested in Egypt between 11,000 and 8,000BP, apart from a group of very small Arkinian sites (around 9400BP) in the region of the second cataract.
Rutherford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times p.5-6 refers to this period as a "Dark Age" in which after 6,000BC "we emerge from it to find agricultural, "Neolithic" communities everywhere dotting the landscape".
The "proposed circumstances" for this are logically climactic or that these sites may be as yet undiscovered hidden under modern alluvial deposits which the latter seems suspect to some degree, though possible, as if so then these Neolithic sites should have largely suffered a similar fate as well, yet we find many.
> when we have a million-year
> hominid occupation and the form of a river which
> supplies a natural base of sustenance? Was it
> abandoned at some point, leaving a few hangers-on,
> only to be repopulated from external regions?
That's the question which as I have already quoted to you extensively, for example-again:
To quote Romer:
Yet the Neolithic Revolution did not originate within the orbit of the River Nile. At the time that the Faiyum farmers were sowing their first crops, other farmers to the north and east [of Africa], had been employing the same techniques of cultivation for at least five thousand years. Nor were the Faiyum farmers crop's nor were their domestic animals indigenous to Egypt, or indeed to any part of Africa: not their cattle, not their sheep or goats; not their emmer, wheat or barley seed. Even the design of their flinted sickles had been imported. Their grain bins, too, with their muddy linings and their domestic baskets, were of a type that had long been made in the Levant. And though the reeds and rushes used to make their gain baskets are native to the marshes of the Nile, some of the abrasive fibers which were used to bind them together had been cut from palm trees; and these too appear to have been imported into Egypt from Southern Mesopotamia....
It is hardly surprising, then, that the Faiyum farmer's pottery also has alien origins; that the processes of tempering the clay with chopped reed, and of burnishing and slipping the finished wares also appear to have come from the Levant and ultimately, also, from the region know as the Gezira-the "Island"-the area, that is, between the upper Tigris and Euphrates river systems which is now divided between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq.
These are the people that we find in the Nile Valley after 6,000BC. Which does not end there.
You keep trying to impose this on "me", as if it were just "my opinion", but as we can see I am merely reporting the state of knowledge we have at this time in the words of the Egyptologists themselves. While there is some nuanced debate over what this all "really" means, at the very least such influence is indisputable and part of the very fabric of our understand of predynastic culture. You also do not seem to grasp the concept of the passing of time, which is common when people formulate opinions of ancient history, as if a thousand years might as well be a day. Europeans first started arriving to America over 500yrs ago and wave after wave they kept coming. But in the relative blink of an eye, in just a few hundred years, there was a point where they were no longer "Europeans" in a foreign land, but rather Americans in their own.
Predynastic AE history is a bit more nuanced than that obviously, but in principle is the same. For the groups that stayed, there came a point after many generations where they were no longer "Levantines" or "Mesopotamians", but "Egyptians". But like America, these waves kept coming yet with much different results as the influence of these peoples, either directly through migration to whatever extent and/or indirectly through trade, had a dramatic effect on the direction of the existing cultures which evolved them into something more than what they were before, not "something else" entirely.
> Is it your position the ancient Egyptian culture
> (even pre-dynastic) is wholly influenced and
> generated from Mesopotamian people, i.e Fertile
> Crescent inhabitants?
The predynastic migrants who made it and stayed, for this conversation in context post 6,000BC, became the non-Nubian quasi "indigenous" populations of which punctuated events over time, namely further migration and contact of/with foreign groups of greater Mesopotamia, most notably in the mid/late 5th and particularly again in the 4th millennium, directly influenced the cultural changes leading up to the formation of the Dynastic state. Where I part ways with some, not all Egyptologists, is that the very impetus for the Dynastic state and institution of kingship was a direct result of this foreign influence which I believe the first kings were in fact foreign. This foreign rule was gruesome instituting the ritual killing of hundreds if not thousands of subjects to be buried in memoriam with the passing of each king, a clearly Mesopotamian practice, which abruptly ended in the 2nd Dynasty with apparent revolt and the separation of the two lands. I can keep going, but at least this gets us to this point.
I don't know how many ways or times I can explain this to you. This was not an "invasion", far from it, but rather a "helping hand", a cultural "upgrade" of what had already taken root-not a "replacement". "AE 2.0".
> That nothing is indigenous
> to Nilotic peoples, and certainly not Sub-Saharan?
> The whole thing is actually Meso, QED?
As said, what is "Nilotic" or not is relative of which the most notable of these groups, as they are not all the "same" nor do they all represent a linear evolution of one group leading to the next culminating in the Dynastic period, have their origins in one form or another outside of Africa most notably in context after 6,000BC. The Sudan, which in historical context would be "Nubia" to loosely include northern Ethiopia and Eritrea, is not part of the "Sub-Saharan", a modern distinction based on the proliferation of Arabic countries, which of course there was cultural contact between the two groups that AE make the distinction between themselves and Nubians quite clear. So, do I believe Sub-Saharan peoples, i.e. those below Nubia, had any influence on the formation of the Dynastic state or comprise groups of predynastic peoples? No. If there is any archeological evidence to support such please provide it as so far it is invisible to me.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03-Jul-17 17:26 by Thanos5150.