> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > 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
But the AE were not wholly Caucasoid, rather an admixture developed throughout the Paleolithic. I don't discount a section of it rooted in the Fertile Crescent due to the 'return to Africa diaspora'. Still, the more important focus is on the culture itself, not the physiological roots.
> > Curiously,
> > > 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
> > 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.
Excellent, thanks. Forgot about that. I humbly accept the Crow served to me. :)
That is interesting, isn't it - the apparent drop in occupation in that particular range. It raises a few questions, like, if they (a 'larger' portion of the population) did migrate, where did they go? I believe the why could be climate based (early Holocene increase in monsoon contributing to increased flood dangers). However, the record is not entirely void, and we ought to encourage the inclusion of all of Chapter 2 from your reference. If interested, readers can follow up on the biblio in my now-ancient article 'Godpyre'.
We should also be aware of the predominate region where the population more-or-less remained, i.e. Qena Bend and south from there. I mention this because ground zero for the spark of empire comes from here. See entry and biblio: Nekhen, etc, and locations further south, like Esna, Edfu, and Aswan (and beyond. The developmental aspects are drawn from the outlying (local) region of these locations, and are not reminiscent nor representative of Meso influence.
On an unfortunately cryptic note (truly apologetic here), I can say there is a very good reason they stuck to these areas beginning long before the Holocene. Key aspects of the later 'religion' of ancient Egypt was acutely born here.
Backtracking for a second to where I asked, 'Where'd they go?' in the c.3000-year gap of occupation suggested by Shaw et al, well, there's the immediate high-desert (note: 'desert' now, not then) east and west.
> 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.
But they don't just exist in Egypt (i.e. Nile basin), Canaan and Israel. There is a great deal of literature on the Paleolithic and Neolithic story of the eastern Sahara, which I defer to a google search. :)
> > when we have a million-year
> > hominid occupation and the form of a river
> > supplies a natural base of sustenance? Was it
> > abandoned at some point, leaving a few
> > 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
> 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
No repetition, really, that's my fault because I snipped it and didn't respond. :)
Romer is pushing it a bit here. Seriously. For starters, the Faiyum does not = ancient Egypt culture. Holding back no punches, Romer explicitly states the empire and culture of ancient Egypt is purely and utterly imported; that nothing and no one of indigenous northeast African crop contributed a lick of salt to it. An influx of proportional influence is expected.
The largest and most discarded spearhead is the missing script in ancient Egypt. That if a Crescent culture came to Egypt, and they alone gave rise to all of it, where is the cuneiform? I would like to impress upon all the distinct, pervasive difference between cuneiform and hieroglyphs, and why it matters so much. I encourage thinking about why I would say this. If it does come to anyone, I welcome your questions for me to explain further.
> 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.
??? I grasp this concept very well! That was an unexpected jab! LOL.
> 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".
So, they were 'bred' out?
> > Is it your position the ancient Egyptian
> > (even pre-dynastic) is wholly influenced and
> > generated from Mesopotamian people, i.e
> > 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.
We will agree to disagree. :)
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 think a further understanding of the regions of the Nile would help in understanding the dynastic formations. (By the way, one has to take a leap of faith to see past the 'unification' claim; although conflict is suggested, this has to be seen in the context of (local) tribal conflict. It is a common to the modern mind to see the ancient empire as having millions of plebes, massive armies, etc, etc ... it simply wasn't like this.)
> 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".
Which still suggests the Nile people did not contribute, rather only received the wisdom from others; that nothing of the culture of northeast Africa had any impact whatsoever on the ancient Egyptian empire.
> 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.