> What the evidence suggests to me is that these
> foreigners were limited in numbers,
> separate/separated from their governments, and
> stayed to evolve along with the local populations.
> Given their technical and cultural "superiority"
> the quickly were able to take control with little
> conflict. Part and parcel with this I would
> suggest is some of their imposing and strange
> physical appearance, being robust in stature with
> odd skulls. They may have been seen as divine
> and/or sold themselves as such. Unlike the
> pharaohs, Mesopotamian kings were not considered
> gods which I thinks speaks to this.
> Narmer is depicted as a large imposing figure
> wearing the elongated white crown of upper Egypt:
> Bloodlines were obviously very important to AE
> nobility and again elongated skulls associated
> with royalty were common physically for nearly
> 2,000yrs. I do not think this a coincidence. As
> weird as elongated skulls may be, its is a real
> thing with a long and curious history spanning
> thousands of years and several cultures in the
> greater ancient Mediterranean world.
> Regardless, Mesopotamia was a land of merchants
> whose economy was powered by traveling far and
> wide for goods which was ultimately the
> relationship that was first struck long before the
> formation of the Dynastic state. To theorize, I
> suspect the people that became the Foreign Elites,
> the 1st pharaohs, were relatively small groups
> with a separatist bent motivated to take control
> of Egypt to command and exploit trade who
> basically set themselves as as living "gods". I
> have to wonder if the ritual of burying boats was
> part of this forsaking of their nationality to
> live for good in Egypt. Maybe a sign of fealty.
One thing I would add to this is that a recent RCD study drastically reduced the length of the Naqada period suggesting it began sometime between 3800-3700BC and not 4400BC as previously suggested.
Carbon dating shows ancient Egypt’s rapid expansion.
An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling
During the Predynastic period, progress “becomes faster and faster, so much happens”, he says. “In the last two centuries, around 3200 BC, it is breathtaking.”
The study notes:
Our dates for the beginning of Naqada IIIA centre [Dynasty 0] on the late thirty-fourth century BCE (table 1) and coincide remarkably closely with the first evidence for cuneiform script in Mesopotamia ....
Consequently, our data support a shortening of the Egyptian Predynastic, the period over which state formation occurred, to between 600 and 700 calendar years (table 1). This finding accentuates a contrast with neighbouring southwest Asia, where the transition from cereal production to state formation took somewhere between four and five millennia. It reinforces the suggestion that, despite their geographical proximity, prehistoric societies in Africa and Asia followed very different trajectories to political centralization....
Yes, quite different. They don't say it, but the vibe I get from these comments is an allusion to the fact they had help from Mesopotamia.
When all of these RCD studies are considered, what they show is the OK on average is about 200yrs older, some sites even older, with the Naqada period beginning some 600-700yrs later where the Dynasty 0/1 period represents an uncharacteristically rapid explosion of high culture. These models and dates all provide for ranges of probability which it is quite possible the period between Dynasty 0 (according to this study c. avg 3300BC) and Giza is even shorter. If we consider the average of the '95 RCD dates of G1 at c. 2750BC we are looking at a period of less than 600yrs, maybe less, perhaps much less, between the 1st Elite tombs and the Great Pyramid.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 25-Nov-16 06:18 by Thanos5150.