Radiocarbon dates and more recent DNA studies indicate that goats (Capra aegagrus f. hircus) and sheep (Ovis orientalis f. aries) were domesticated from Southwest Asian wild progenitors and introduced into northern Africa (Luikart et al. 2001). The term “caprine,” subsuming both sheep and goats, will be used in this chapter. These closely related species are difficult to distinguish based on fragmentary osteological remains. “Caprine” is derived from the zoological subfamily Caprinae, and is preferable to “ovicaprid” which suggests a nonexistent family Ovicapridae. Domestic caprine species were introduced into Africa by one or more routes (Smith 1984): from the Levant via the northern coast of Africa, as part of maritime trade; into the Nile delta from the Sinai; or by boat from the Arabian peninsula based on early dates for goats in the Red Sea Hills of Egypt (Vermeersch et al. 1994). Sheep and goats appear in greater numbers than cattle in the Khartoum region of the Sudanese Nile and in a few sites in north Africa, suggesting that their history in Africa may differ from that of bovines in timing and spread.
Donkeys (Equus africanus f. asinus), ubiquitous beast of burden and emergency food source among pastoralists, are almost certainly an African domesticate, but their scarceness in archaeological sites renders concrete discussion of their history difficult (Clutton-Brock 1997). The introduction of the camel (Camelus dromedarius) was relatively late and details are as yet not well understood, and will not be discussed here (see Rowley-Conwy 1988). The origins and even the proper taxonomic classification of African cattle are still strongly debated. Gautier (1988) settled earlier debates about the variety of wild African Bos species prior to domestication, arguing that a number of supposed species are simply regional varieties, or male and females of one species. Present controversy centers on whether cattle were independently domesticated in Africa. Wild cattle remains (usually called Bos primigenius, but see below) have been recovered from Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological and paleontological localities in northern Africa as far south as the Nile Valley in northern Sudan westward across north Africa (Churcher 1972, 1983; Gautier 1987b, 1988). With the southward shift of Mediterranean flora at the onset of the Holocene, cattle and other fauna inhabiting such zones likely penetrated areas now part of the Sahara proper.Yet it is unclear how different African wild cattle were from their Southwest Asian and European cousins in environmental preferences and physique. Grigson (2000) notes that wild African cattle may (her emphasis) have been slightly smaller than those from the Levant, but small sample size prevents a definitive statement. At the same time, early domestic cattle in northern Africa, while relatively tall, are more linear and gracile than domestic cattle in Southwest Asia. This suggests an adaptation to heat tolerance, which might antedate the domestication process (see below).
Were Cattle Domesticated in Africa?
The traditional viewpoint is that cattle were domesticated in Southwest Asia and later introduced from the Levant into northern Africa.This view was based on dates of first appearance and anatomy: the earliest archaeological instances of cattle in African sites were straight-backed (Carter and Clark 1976; Smith 1986) like Southwest Asian cattle and unlike humped indicine, or zebu, cattle that were separately domesticated around the Indus Valley. Furthermore, the breeds of modern African cattle most tolerant of sleeping sickness (i.e., the N’Dama) and considered products of a long selective history in the tsetse zone of West Africa are also straight-backed. The widespread humped cattle breeds of Africa, often called “Sanga” (Epstein 1971), were, according to traditional views, a product of more recent crossbreeding of the earliest Southwest Asian introductions with zebu cattle (Bos primigenius f. indicus) from South Asia. Zebu were introduced by the British into Sudan and other parts of East Africa in the 19th century, but Epstein (1971) argued that humped indigenous cattle breeds probably derived from an earlier admixture of indicine and taurine stocks, perhaps during the Islamic Indian Ocean trade.
Genetic comparisons of African, South Asian, Southwest Asian, and European cattle breeds have shed new light on cattle domestication, suggesting three independent domestication events, including one in Africa. However, inferences drawn from genetics are not universally accepted among Africanist archaeologists; their reception is complicated by two pre-existing lines of argument, each drawn from a different database. The first centers on controversial assertions of the presence of domestic cattle in the tenth millennium b.p. in Egypt. The second entails comparative osteology of African versus Southwest Asian cattle from later archaeological sites.
Tenth millennium cattle domestication?
Starting in the 1980s,Wendorf, Gautier, and their associates argued for the presence of domestic cattle in the tenth millennium b.p. in sites from the Bir Kiseiba area of the Egyptian Western Desert (Close 1990; Gautier 1984b; Wendorf and Schild 1998;Wendorf et al. 1987). These dates would make African cattle domestication an independent and older event than in Southwest Asia. The osteological remains in question were sparse and not identifiable beyond the designation “large bovid.”The main reason for arguing their domestic status was their association with remains of desert-adapted wild species (hares, gazelles, hartebeests), with which Bos primigenius is not normally associated. Their presence in an inferred desert environment was thought to reflect human intervention, bringing tamed cattle into arid zones to serve as a source of food and liquids, since cows convert water undrinkable by humans into milk or blood. Gautier and van Neer (1982) further proposed that large bovid bone fragments from the Ti-n-Torha East Cave in Libya (8490–7920 b.p.) could also be of domestic cattle. Again, evidence is sparse and not highly diagnostic. Grigson (2000) discounts association of putative Bos with hartebeest and gazelle as compelling evidence for the artificial (hence domesticated) appearance of cattle in this environmental context. More widely accepted evidence appears by about 7700 b.p. in the Nabta-Kiseiba region (MacDonald 2000). Gautier (1987a, 1987b; Gautier and van Neer 1982) in fact later retracted definitive identifications of Bos for both the earliest Egyptian and the Ti-n-Torha East samples.
Comparative osteology
Comparative osteological study of African and Southwest Asian cattle led Grigson (1991) to suggest that African cattle were distinct in cranial and postcranial morphology and that zooarchaeologists should re-examine their assumed derivation from Near Eastern stock. She argued that early African cattle from Egyptian and Saharan sites were tall, straight-backed, and linear, with slender, lyre-shaped horns in cows, and more outward-curved, semi-circular horns in bulls. African cattle have longer and more parallel-sided frontals and flatter faces side to side than Bos taurus
of Southwest Asia and Europe. She proposed that North African aurochs, Bos primigenius mauritanicus (or Bos primigenius opisthonomus) was a likely candidate for the ancestor of the humpless domestic African cattle found earliest in African sites. She proposed “Bos africanus” as the name for the domestic variant. Grigson (2000) continues to argue for an African domestication event, based both on the new genetic data and the distinctive osteology of African cattle.
Genetic evidence
Comparisons of mitochondrial (mtDNA) and y-chromosome DNA of living domestic cattle (Bradley et al. 1996; Bradley and Loftus 2000; Loftus et al. 1994; MacHugh et al. 1997) from Europe, India, and Africa have yielded several new findings regarding African cattle domestication. Among the most surprising, and directly relevant to Grigson’s hypothesis, is that the mtDNA (maternal lineage) of indigenous African cattle breeds are all taurine, whether or not the breeds were straight-backed or humped. Y-chromosome DNA evidence shows that humped cattle derived from an indicine paternal line. In another study of genetic variation, MacHugh et al. (1997) demonstrated that a haplotype common in African cattle occurs in very low frequencies in both the Levant and the Iberian peninsula, then falls off to nil with increasing distance from Africa. This pattern is expected if the haplotype originated in an African population and spread east and west through low rates of interbreeding of African stock with Levantine and Iberian cattle. Despite new evidence, cattle domestication in Africa should not be treated as an either/or question, with cattle either domesticated in Africa or introduced from Southwest Asia. Evidence from Merimda in Egypt suggests that this area received caprines, pigs, and Near Eastern domestic plants as a “package” by the fifth millennium b.p., and Grigson (2000) notes that the Merimda cattle measurements (von den Driesch and Boessneck 1985) are nearly identical to those from the Levant. This suggests that cattle may have been introduced to some areas a part of a Southwest Asian “package,” especially those closest to that region, but not in other areas. There is no a priori reason for excluding one possibility based on evidence for the other in another area. In sum, the eastern Saharan osteological evidence from 9000 to 8000 b.p. is too tenuous to establish unequivocally where, when, and how domestic cattle first appeared in Africa. However, several independent lines of genetic evidence offer more substantial evidence that African cattle derive in part from aurochs native to northern Africa.
Current Views on the Origins of African Pastoralism
Current researchers differ in whether they see links between adoption of domestic cattle and caprines. Hassan (2000) proposed that cattle were tamed by foragers in the arid Egyptian Sahara at 8500–9000 b.p. as a risk-reduction strategy to cope with climatic instability and then spread to the central Sahara by 6500 b.p. In Hassan’s scenario, caprines were introduced by 7500–7000 b.p. from Southwest Asia by two routes, from the Mediterranean coast (where they appear before cattle) and from the Red Sea Hills. Kevin MacDonald (2000) notes that definite domestic cattle remains exist by 7700 b.p. The earliest evidence for cattle domestication in Southwest Asia is in Anatolia ca. 8000–7000 b.p., while evidence for eighthmillennium domestic cattle in areas closer to the Sinai and northeastern Africa is more equivocal. This suggests that independent domestication events may have been virtually simultaneous.
Smith (e.g., 1986), while agreeing to the general scenario from about the seventh millennium b.p. onward, accepts neither the Early Holocene Egyptian evidence for early domesticates nor the indigenous origins of cattle. Smith contends that cattle and caprines appear together in nearly all places, suggesting that a “Neolithic package” was introduced from Southwest Asia; when a taxon appears in isolation, it reflects specialized use of cattle or caprines in different environmental zones, rather than a temporal order of appearance (Smith 1989). Based on ethnographic sources (e.g., Ingold 1980), Smith argues that a shift to pastoralism would probably be rare, because of social and ideological barriers to its development among hunter-gatherers with an ethos of meat-sharing. He asserts that this difference poses a major barrier to the transition from foraging to food production based on ownership of herds (Smith 1992). Sadr and Plug (Sadr 2002; Sadr and Plug 2001) have proposed that the line between stock-owning and hunting-gathering is not as stark as depicted by Smith, given archaeological evidence for mixed hunting-herding economies in both South Africa and the Sudanese “Neolithic.” South African sites of the Thamaga rockshelter complex suggest a sequence in which San-speaking foragers originally subsisted solely as hunter-gatherers but, with the arrival of iron-using immigrants in their region, adopted small stock and ceramics and dropped hunting smaller animals, while continuing to hunt larger game.While these foragers ultimately made a full shift to food production, the sequence appears to reflect a gradual transition rather than either resistance or a wholesale “revolution” in subsistence. Marshall and Hildebrand (2002) stressed that hunter-gatherer economies and ideologies vary, and that so-called delayed-return foragers may have been predisposed to accepting the consequences of ownership that food production brings. Delayed-return foragers invest time and energy in food-getting artifacts, facilities, or storage at one point in their yearly cycle, anticipating a later return on their investment. They have concepts of ownership of the means to produce and the products themselves (Meillasoux 1972;Woodburn 1986). Marshall and Hildebrand argue Early Holocene moist phase communities were delayed-return foragers depending on profuse wild grain harvests (Chapter 7). Climatic change increased unpredictability of this plant food base and led some groups in the eastern Sahara to intensify management of cattle, a process enabled by pre-existing, socially sanctioned forms of non-communal ownership of plant products. Taming cattle that might otherwise disperse lowered prey search time to zero, but only if groups opted for higher mobility than during the earlier moist phase. Marshall and Hildebrand argue that such pastoral mobility may have enhanced the ability to locate now scattered but locally dense wild grain stands under unpredictable rainfall regimes (Chapter 10).
Debates on the origins of African pastoralism tend to focus on cattle.We tend to think of caprines as insignificant “small change,” but Saharan rock art and Nilotic iconography reflect the high regard in which goats and sheep were held by African peoples (Le Quellec 1998), and archaeologists need to consider how caprine introductions affected human populations. Sheep and goats were alien species, already domesticated, reproductively successful under human handling, and probably amenable to milking. They would have been a truly novel component in a forager way of life, offering a new food source and lowering search time for smaller prey, but perhaps at the cost of decreasing residential mobility (Stahl 1993; Chapter 9), and certainly requiring a revamping of notions of ownership and entitlement.
Point 1:The Fact of Pastoralism before Farming
Africanist scholars are converging on acceptance of a long pre-agricultural history of the pastoral way of life in Africa. Reliance on cattle, sheep, and goats was a stable and widespread way of life by 6400 b.p., thousands of years before the first appearance of domestic plants or settled village farming communities (Chapter 10).Why the existence of pastoralism without farming has been so hard for many to accept will be taken up in the final section of this chapter. The second unique aspect of early African pastoralism, its technological homogeneity, will be discussed at the end of the section on the North African evidence.
Diane Gifford-Gonzalez in African Archaeology
More interesting stuff ahead, will post it 2morrow.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
North Africa may be divided into three regions, each of which appears to have its own pastoral trajectory: (1) the northwestern region, or Maghreb, on or close to the shores of the Mediterranean; (2) the Nile Valley and its immediately adjacent dry hinterlands, and (3) the Sahara proper, stretching from west of the Nile to the Atlantic Ocean.
The Maghreb
Much of far North Africa appears to have been a discrete set of cultural provinces through much of the Holocene, tied more to developments in the Mediterranean basin than the Sahara.The Terminal Pleistocene Iberomaurusian, Capsian, and later Neolithic of Capsian Tradition all reflect the geographically distinct aspect of the region (Lubell et al. 1984).
This said, some of the earliest dates for caprines in Africa and early dates for cattle derive from North Africa. Analysis of fauna from the deeply stratified site of Haua Fteah, on the Cyrenaican coast of Libya, suggests that caprines were present early in the seventh millennium b.p. (Higgs 1967; Klein and Scott 1986). The Capelletti Cave in the Aurès Mountains of Algeria (Roubet 1979) shows the early presence of caprines and cattle at 6500 b.p., with cattle increasing in proportion to caprines through the next two millennia, ultimately representing nearly 25 percent of the total identifiable elements at about 4250 b.p. Some have suggested that domesticates, especially caprines, entered North Africa from Sicily and Malta, while others have argued for their spread as part of the active trade along the Mediterranean littoral (see Smith 1992).
The Nile
During the “wild Nile” phase of the Terminal Pleistocene, the hinterlands of Egypt and Sudan had large playa lakes and streams, and even in the ninth and eighth millennia b.p. were more hospitable than present conditions suggest. Sites in oases and around now defunct lakes testify to foraging and, later, to the use of domestic cattle and small stock. The earliest uncontroversial dates for domestic ungulates in Africa are for cattle in the Nabta-Kiseiba region, attributed to the “Middle Neolithic” phase (7700–6500 b.p.). These are not numerous, either in terms of site samples or numbers of specimens. The Nabta-Kiseiba record reflects a period when cattle were not integrated with caprines. Caprines first appear with cattle from ca. 6300 b.p., and perhaps as early as 7000 b.p. on the Bir Kiseiba Scarp, but in culturally “Late Neolithic” contexts (Gautier 1984b). Caprines occur in the Red Sea Hills east of the Nile between 7000 and 6700 b.p. (Vermeersch et al. 1994). Close (2002) has argued that caprines could have crossed the Red Sea to Africa without arriving as part of a farming “package.” In Dakhleh Oasis, near the center of the Egyptian Western Desert, a similar pattern of sedentary foraging is evident from the ninth millennium b.p., with no sign of domestic animals. About 7000 b.p., both cattle and caprines appear in the sites. With increasingly dry conditions after 6500 b.p., pastoral exploitation of the oasis area and its hinterlands continued, with evidence of continuation into Dynastic times (McDonald 1998). Gautier (1976) confirmed that the Kom W assemblage of the Fayûm A complex, originally excavated by Caton-Thompson and Gardner (1934) in the Fayûm Depression, contained wild animals and small stock, but no cattle remains. Other Fayûm A sites dating to ca. 5800 b.p. yielded smaller cattle than Bos primigenius from Terminal Paleolithic sites. Cattle appear later in the Nile Valley. Between 6500 and 6000 b.p., domestic cattle appear in the Nile Delta at Merimda-Benisalama (von den Driesch and Boessneck 1985), along with Near Eastern domestic plants and caprines. Contrary to earlier Egyptological interpretations, Hassan (1988) sees Merimda and other early Predynastic sites not as farming communities, but rather continuations of the long Nilotic tradition of sedentary, intensive foraging, with crops and domestic animals used to reduce risk of food shortfalls (Table 8.1). The area around Khartoum, Sudan, has long been known for evidence of late tenth- and ninth-millennium b.p. pottery-making sedentary foragers who exploited plants and river animals (Arkell 1949; Haaland 1992).Wavy-line and, later, dotted wavy-line ceramic styles were ubiquitous along the Nile, and associated with diverse lithic traditions (Garcea 1998; Marks et al. 1968; Chapter 7). Though a temporal hiatus may separate Early and Late Khartoum phases, the Late Khartoum type site, Esh Shaheinab, displays similar exploitation of river resources as the Early Khartoum sites (Haaland 1987). Full use of cattle, sheep, and goats begins ca. 6000–5000 b.p. (Barich 1998; Marshall 1998). Researchers have argued that cattle entered the Nubian Nile with immigrating pastoralists during a Saharan dry phase. Garcea (1998) notes that entry of Saharan groups into Nubia is supported by the regional replacement of incised wavy-line by rocker-stamped dotted wavy-line pottery, which first appeared in the Acacus, Hoggar, and Aïr regions. Krzyzaniak (1978), Haaland (1987, 1992), and Sadr (2002) argue that the sixthmillennium b.p. Late Khartoum saw a regional system of seasonal movements and specialized production timed to the Nile floods. Large, Nile-focused settlements such as Esh Shaheinab were complemented by groups in the drier hinterlands east of the Nile where livestock production dominated, such as Kadero (Gautier 1984a; Krzyzaniak 1978; Sadr 2002), Kedada (Gautier 1986), Umm Direiwa (Haaland 1987), and Zakiab (Tigani el Mahi 1988). Late fourth-millennium b.p. Nubian societies (e.g. Kerma kingdom) and the third-millennium b.p. Meroitic civilization depended heavily on livestock for subsistence and trade. Kerma especially used cattle and sheep in funerary rituals (Chaix 1993, 1994). Sadr (1991) sees later pastoralism in the Sudan’s Atbai region as similar to Southwest Asia’s, integrated with and responsive to regional states.
The Sahara
The Sahara displays diverse topography including sand seas (ergs) and mountainous regions (Figure 8.1). Early in the Holocene, sand seas were lakes and, later, well-watered marshes or savannas that facilitated human movement by watercraft or served as well-watered avenues for seasonal migrations of wild and domestic ungulate herds. Similar ceramic motifs distributed from the Nile to the Atlantic testify to the greater ease of human communication (Garcea 1998). The Lake Chad basin is key to understanding communication through the Saharan region (Figure 8.1). This centrally located lake is today distant from the highlands arcing around the south-central Sahara and other major bodies of water. During its Early Holocene high stands, however, it linked via the Benue River to the Niger drainage, and its northeastern margins were much nearer to Jebel Marra and the Ennedi (Grove 1980). Inhabitants of its eastern shores were thus much closer to the Nile, via the Wadi Howar, sometimes called the “Yellow Nile” (Keding 1998) that flows east to the Dongola reach.
(Dates are in B.P.)
Westward-flowing streams from Jebel Marra flowed into Lake Chad, while those on its southeastern side fed the Bahrel- Arab/Bahr-el-Ghazal complex, ending at the White Nile and Sobat rivers confluence, in turn linked to Lake Victoria and Lake Turkana (Grove 1980). Because much of the relevant faunal material west of Egypt is preserved in highland rockshelters and caves rather than in open sites, we may have a skewed understanding of when and where livestock herders first colonized ancient Saharan savannas. The Sahara is dotted with hearth-rings and stone concentrations with large, waisted “tethering stones,” often interpreted as hobbles for cattle and thus remnants of pastoral sites (Gabriel 1987). Although some such sites yielded materials datable to the span of pastoralism in the Sahara, some sites date from 10500 b.p. Pre-pastoral Saharan rock art shows wild animals as giraffes with a foot caught in wheel-like radial traps moored to similar waisted stones (Le Quellec 1998). It is therefore not possible to diagnose all these so-called Steinplätze as pastoral camps. Whatever the impacts of this preservational bias, dates suggest first appearances are earliest in the east, from ca. 7500 b.p., and are distributed throughout the Sahara by a millennium later (Table 8.2). The Uan Afuda Cave in the Acacus region of Libya, and possibly other sites dating to the ninth millennium b.p., provide intriguing evidence for management of aoudads, or Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia).
(Dates are in B.P.)
Aoudads were the dominant food animal in the Early Holocene/Early Acacus phase. Uan Afuda appears to have been used during the rainy season, and after 8900 b.p. has ample grinding equipment and comb-impressed ceramic vessels (di Lernia 1999, 2001).The presence of layers of caprine dung but the absence of the Southwest Asian caprines from the Early Acacus sequence leads di Lernia (2001) to infer corralling of aoudads, which would not enter a cave on their own. Di Lernia sees penning aoudads, coinciding with a broadening of animal species taken and increased used of wild hard-seeded plants, as adaptations to climatic deterioration. He stresses that, although Ammotragus was never brought under domestication, their penning and deferred use imply a social system with delayed-consumption strategies amenable to adopting the use of livestock.
Not far west, in the Tassili-n-Ajjer, ninth-millennium b.p. moist phase occupations exploiting fish and wild grains (Amekni, Camps, ed., 1969), were followed by mid-eighth- to sixth-millennium b.p. pastoral occupations (Ti-n- Hanakaten), associated with intensified harvest of acacia, a tree legume (Aumassip 1986; Aumassip and Tauveron 1993). This may have been aimed at satisfying human nutritional needs, while acacia pods would also have been fodder for livestock.
A thriving pastoral economy focused on cattle thrived in the central Sahara during the seventh to sixth millennia b.p., associated with the Tenerian lithic industry (Carter and Clark 1976; Paris 2000; Roset 1987; Tixier 1962). At Adrar Bous, which is in the process of another round of radiocarbon dating, the Tenerian fauna is almost exclusively cattle, with no caprines, no fish, and some hartebeest (Alcelaphus), and gazelle species. The Tenerian is marked by special handling of cattle remains. At Adrar Bous, cattle body segments were reassembled after meat was consumed, and/or bones burned well beyond the stage expected in simple roasting (Gifford-Gonzalez n.d.; Paris 2000). In other cases entire animals, usually young cows, were interred (Paris 2000). The well-known young cow from Adrar Bous (Carter and Clark 1976) was interpreted as a natural death based on its position and lack of a discernible pit. However, interment of young cows has also been noted in the “Late Neolithic” of Nabta Playa in the Egyptian Eastern Desert, where a heifer was found buried under a megalithic construction (Applegate et al. 2001; Wendorf and Schild 1998); other localities have interred body segments. Some Predynastic sites also have cow interments (F. Hassan, pers. comm. 1997), a practice that continues in association with temple construction into the Dynastic era. Applegate et al. (2001) summarize special handling of cattle over a wide range of the central to eastern Sahara, suggesting common practices through this expansive region. Similarities in tool forms and ceramics across a wide region similarly suggest extensive networks of shared knowledge and practice (Garcea 1998). Underlying similarities in artistic convention of rock art also suggest communication over great distances (Smith 1986). Hassan (1993) has argued that rock art played a critical role in the maintenance of pastoral society through the climatic fluctuations of the Early to Middle Holocene (cf. Holl 1995).
Diane Gifford-Gonzalez in African Archaeology, A Critical IntroductionPosts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
What are the full Applegate and Hassan references below, if you can locate them? And what do you make of the comment about rock art? How would it help in the maintenance of pastoral society as Hassan suggests?
"Applegate et al. (2001) summarize special handling of cattle over a wide range of the central to eastern Sahara, suggesting common practices through this expansive region. Similarities in tool forms and ceramics across a wide region similarly suggest extensive networks of shared knowledge and practice (Garcea 1998). Underlying similarities in artistic convention of rock art also suggest communication over great distances (Smith 1986). Hassan (1993) has argued that rock art played a critical role in the maintenance of pastoral society through the climatic fluctuations of the Early to Middle Holocene (cf. Holl 1995).
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
1993 Rock Art. Cognitive Schemata and Symbolic Interpretation: A Matter of Life and Death.
Applegate et al. (2001):
Applegate, Alex, Achilles Gautier, and Steven Duncan, 2001 The North Tumuli of the Nabta Late Neolithic Ceremonial Complex. In Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara, vol. 1: The Archaeology of Nabta Playa. Fred Wendorf, Romuald Schild, and Associates. pp. 468–488. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
I'm not sure what Hassan is alluding to. I think it might have something to do with it acting as durable memory that reminded (later) inhabitants of the lifestyle of their ancestors, and thus, strengthening the cultural position of the pastoral lifestyle among later pastoralists despite environmental hardships. It is mentioned in the texts above, I believe (sorry, been doing a lot of reading), that pastorialsm and agriculture were not necessarily irreversible paths of progression, away from hunter-gathering. If that’s where Hassan was going with it, I can see how rock art that depicts humans along with their livestock in ceremonies/behaviors that later descendants would've recognized, might have acted in that way.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pastoralism in Africa are all tied ultimately, as the genetics of domesticated African Taurine attests to. This means, western African pastoralism is ultimately tied to the earliest cattle domestication in eastern Africa, namely in the Nabta region of Egypt.
The authors continue to use the dubious term of Iberomaurusian; what justification is given to us, is anyone's guess. Pottery invention in western Africa is independent from the eastern African counterpart.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This topic was discussed many times before with multiple studies cited and I have yet to see any evidence refuting cattle domestication in Africa. In fact several papers I've read including those by Ehret go as far as to say Nilo-Saharan speakers were likely involved in this process as virtually all the cattle terminology is Nilo-Saharan including those used by the Egyptians.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
In addition to the archeological and paleontological evidence, recent linguistic studies indicate the presence of early pastoralists in the Eastern Sahara. Detailed analysis of Nilo-Saharan root words has provided "convincing evidence" that the early cultural history of that language family included a pastoralist and food producing way of life, and that this occurred in what is today the south-western Sahara and Sahel belt.
The Nilo-Saharan family of languages is divided into a complex array of branches and subgroups that reflect an enormous time depth. Just one of the subgroups, Kir is as internally complex as the lndo-European family of languages and is believed to have a comparable age. The Sudanese branch is of special interest here. This is particularly true of the Northern Sudanese subfamily that includes a Saharo-Sahelian subgroup, the early homeland of which is placed in northwest Sudan and northeast Chad. Today, the groups that speak Saharo-Sahelian are dispersed from the Niger river eastward to northwestern Ethiopian highlands.
The Proto-Northern Sudanic language contains root words such as "to drive," "cow, "grain,""ear of grain," and "grindstone." Any of these might apply to food production, but another root word meaning "to milk" is cetainly the most convincing evidence of incipient pastoralism.
There are also root words for "temporary shelter" and "to make a pot." In the succeeding Proto-Saharo-Sahelian language, there are root words for "to cultivate", "to prepare field", to "clear" (of weeds), and "cultivated field." this is the first unambiguous linguistic evidence of cultivation. There are also words for "thombush cattle pen," "fence," "yard," "grannary," as well as "to herd" and "cattle." In the following Proto-Sahelian period, there are root words for "goat," "sheep," "ram," and "lamb," indicating the presence of small livestock.
There are root words for "cow," "bull," "ox," and "young cow" or "heifer" and, indeed, a variety of terms relating to cultivation and permanent houses.
On the basis of known historical changes in some of the language, Ehret estimates that the Proto-Northern Sudanic language family, which includes the first root words indicating cattle pastoralism, should be dated about 10,000 years ago. He also estimates that the Proto-Saharan-Sahelian language family, which has words indicating not only more complex cattle pastroalism, but the first indications of cultivation, occurred around 9,000 years ago. He places the Proto-Sahelian language at about 8,500 years ago.
These age estimates are just that, and should not be used to suggest any other chronology. Nevertheless, the sequence of cultural changes is remarkably similar to that in the archeology of the Eastern Sahara and, with some minor adjustments for the beginning of cultivation and for' the inclusion of "sheep" and "goat," reasonably closely to the radiocarbon chronology. - Fred Wendorf & Romuald Schild, 1994.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: In addition to the archeological and paleontological evidence, recent linguistic studies indicate the presence of early pastoralists in the Eastern Sahara. Detailed analysis of Nilo-Saharan root words has provided "convincing evidence" that the early cultural history of that language family included a pastoralist and food producing way of life, and that this occurred in what is today the south-western Sahara and Sahel belt.
When I read the snippets, that I posted here, for the first time, I wondered why Linguistic data was not included in the lines of evidence that have a say, pro or con, in determining the early age of Pastoralism. Temporarily looking past Fred Wendorf & Romuald Schild’s labeling Ehrets work ‘’convincing evidence’’, and playing devils advocate for a minute, how accepted/contested is this linguistic evidence in academic circles? Is reconstructing protolanguage vocabs as shaky as Mathilda claims it is, in her attempt to denounce Ehrets early agriculture specific words, with her example of 6th millennia bp technology appearing in proto indo European reconstructed vocabs?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Root words have to be devoid of terms that are likely to be borrowed from external sources, and are generally basic lexicon. They are based on examination of lexicon in a single language family, that generally convey the same meaning. Nilo-Saharan speaking groups generally have a strong pastoralist tradition and so, the connection between this tradition and language cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially in light of specific collection of interconnected lexicon. Don't know what technology is implicated in proto Indo-European, but if technology in general was a forté of the European end of the phylogeny, then there wouldn't have been delayed complex urbanization and so many borrowing very early on. Writing, cattle domestication, agriculture, and centralized polity, were all concepts brought into Europe from abroad.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Root words have to be devoid of terms that are likely to be borrowed from external sources, and are generally basic lexicon. They are based on examination of lexicon in a single language family, that generally convey the same meaning. Nilo-Saharan speaking groups generally have a strong pastoralist tradition and so, the connection between this tradition and language cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially in light of specific collection of interconnected lexicon. Don't know what technology is implicated in proto Indo-European, but if technology in general was a forté of the European end of the phylogeny, then there wouldn't have been delayed complex urbanization and so many borrowing very early on. Writing, cattle domestication, agriculture, and centralized polity, were all concepts brought into Europe from abroad.
quote:Just a couple of comments on the dates. Proto-Sahelian is given as 9,000 BP, but it includes the words goat and sheep, which don’t seem to arrive in the relevant area (Sudan) until about 5,500 BP at the earliest (they aren’t animals native to Africa). This means Proto-Sahelian can be 5,500 years old or younger, dating to the Neolithic in Africa (depending on the home of proto Saharan Sahelian really). I think the correct dates are about 60% of the given for these two, the others I can’t comment onauthoritatively,but if he’s estimating the dates from linguistic changes, this brings proto Northern Sudanic into the Neolithic too if he’s out by the same percentage on all of them. This would also bring Nilo Saharan to a date of 9k to 10k.
Not as mad as it seems, linguitsic dating put proto Indo European at 9,000 years old, but it has tech that only appeared 5k ago in it, so these estimated dates can be massively incorrect. The same thing goes for Ehrets dating of Afro Asaitic languages.
^This is the piece I was referring to. However problematic she may find Proto European reconstructions, her comparison of it and Proto Sahelian is unjustified. Not only does she fail to give examples beyond the occurrence of words for sheep and goats in Proto Sahelian, her dates for the occurrence of Caprines in the Egypto-Sudanese area are wrong as well (she has it 5,500 BP instead of 7000 BP).
She frames the alledged occurance of Caprine words in Proto Sahelian as conflicting with the age that Ehret proposes, namely, 9000BP, by viewing words for sheep and goats in a restricted context, ie, one where only domesticated and integrated Caprines are valid reasons for having words for sheep and goats in a language, so she can use the appearance of Proto-Sahelian words for later domesticated/introduced Caprines as a reason to lower the age of Proto-Sahelian. There is no reason to do so, as early holocenic migration of wild fauna to North Africa could just as easily have caused their entry into proto Sahelian, as the following bit underlines:
With the southward shift of Mediterranean flora at the onset of the Holocene, cattle and other fauna inhabiting such zones likely penetrated areas now part of the Sahara proper.
In other words, the appearance of words for West Asian Caprines in early African languages is a seperate issue from the (later) archaeological appearance of such animals as domesticates.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In an e-mail conversation I had with Ehret, he suggested that the words in many Afroasiatic languages for caprines were originally used for African antelopes. Maybe the same thing is going on with Proto-Sahelian?
posted
First of all, the question that should be asked, is: did Ehret proclaim to have determined the estimated age solely on the grounds of domesticated caprines, or were other factors involved in this assessment?
As hinted on earlier, in the proto-language reconstruction, common or similar terms for domesticated flora or fauna could well be included, along with other unrelated lexicon, so as to reconstruct the most likely root words that provide the basis for the later derived words, as much as allowed by evidence. So in agreement with the last two posts, the root-word need not be indicative of domesticated fauna, but rather, that the words for domesticated fauna would have likely been borrowed or derived from preexisting terminology for other [endemic] fauna that were perceived to be similar to, or reminders of, later incorporated domesticates. It is the derived terms that should be suggestive of their familiar domestic application.
It is either that, or one would have to assume that entirely new terms were invented for domesticated caprines out of thin air, coincidental to the temporal appearance of domesticated fauna, i.e. if one puts aside the possibility that they are borrowed words that came as a package with the domesticated fauna from an external source. But if entirely new terms were invented for the domesticated fauna at the very instance domesticated fauna make their appearance, and they were not borrowed terms from an external source as an imported package, then how likely is it for one to come across convergent lexical applications during reconstruction of an ancestral proto-language, for the domesticates? Furthermore it should be asked, are proto-Sahelian terms for domesticated fauna imports from external non-African source? Naturally, if the answer to the latter question is "yes", then there would not have been reason to include them in the language reconstruction of proto-Sahelian. If the ultimate answers to these last two questions lead to that which envisions the formulation of locally-derived lexicon, to which all terms of sub-languages under a proto-language converge, then all bets are that said lexicon derive from a common root term that need not have originally been formulated with domesticates in mind, but rather names of potential food sources, which could well have been captured, killed and then eaten.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Linguistic evidence
In addition to the archeological and paleontological evidence, recent linguistic studies indicate the presence of early pastoralists in the Eastern Sahara. Detailed analysis of Nilo-Saharan root words has provided "convincing evidence" that the early cultural history of that language family included a pastoralist and food producing way of life, and that this occurred in what is today the south-western Sahara and Sahel belt.
The Nilo-Saharan family of languages is divided into a complex array of branches and subgroups that reflect an enormous time depth. Just one of the subgroups, Kir is as internally complex as the lndo-European family of languages and is believed to have a comparable age. The Sudanese branch is of special interest here. This is particularly true of the Northern Sudanese subfamily that includes a Saharo-Sahelian subgroup, the early homeland of which is placed in northwest Sudan and northeast Chad. Today, the groups that speak Saharo-Sahelian are dispersed from the Niger river eastward to northwestern Ethiopian highlands.
The Proto-Northern Sudanic language contains root words such as "to drive," "cow, "grain,""ear of grain," and "grindstone." Any of these might apply to food production, but another root word meaning "to milk" is cetainly the most convincing evidence of incipient pastoralism.
There are also root words for "temporary shelter" and "to make a pot." In the succeeding Proto-Saharo-Sahelian language, there are root words for "to cultivate", "to prepare field", to "clear" (of weeds), and "cultivated field." this is the first unambiguous linguistic evidence of cultivation. There are also words for "thombush cattle pen," "fence," "yard," "grannary," as well as "to herd" and "cattle." In the following Proto-Sahelian period, there are root words for "goat," "sheep," "ram," and "lamb," indicating the presence of small livestock.
There are root words for "cow," "bull," "ox," and "young cow" or "heifer" and, indeed, a variety of terms relating to cultivation and permanent houses.
On the basis of known historical changes in some of the language, Ehret estimates that the Proto-Northern Sudanic language family, which includes the first root words indicating cattle pastoralism, should be dated about 10,000 years ago. He also estimates that the Proto-Saharan-Sahelian language family, which has words indicating not only more complex cattle pastroalism, but the first indications of cultivation, occurred around 9,000 years ago. He places the Proto-Sahelian language at about 8,500 years ago.
These age estimates are just that, and should not be used to suggest any other chronology. Nevertheless, the sequence of cultural changes is remarkably similar to that in the archeology of the Eastern Sahara and, with some minor adjustments for the beginning of cultivation and for' the inclusion of "sheep" and "goat," reasonably closely to the radiocarbon chronology. - Fred Wendorf & Romuald Schild, 1994.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You mentioned a Nilo Saharan origin for words for Pastoral activity, including in Ancient Egyptian.
This is what I found regarding the above:
quote:Nilo-Saharan speakers in Sudan and their Cushitic-speaking neighbors in the Red Sea hills probably domesticated cattle at the same time, because each has an independent vocabulary for cattle items, said Dr. Christopher Ehret, an expert on African languages and history at the University of California, Los Angeles. Descendants of each group moved south and would have met again in Kenya, Dr. Ehret said.
posted
^ Yes, lactose tolerance seems to be a consequence of cattle domestication. I believe that article was cited in this forum before. I do think the Nilo-Saharan root words in ancient Egyptian are derived from the Khartoum Mesolithic culture as is cattle domestication itself in the Nile Valley.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tradition of cattle domestications in different regions appear to have taken independent courses once the domesticated animals were incorporated. This may well explain distinctive lexicon in different regions for these domesticates. Be that as it may, the different pastoralist groups or communities appear to have drawn their cattle domesticates from a common original or ancestral source, as the genetics of the cattle breeds, aside from subsequent cross-breeding efforts, point to a monophylogenetic origin for the domesticated African cattle.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, lactose tolerance seems to be a consequence of cattle domestication. I believe that article was cited in this forum before. I do think the Nilo-Saharan root words in ancient Egyptian are derived from the Khartoum Mesolithic culture as is cattle domestication itself in the Nile Valley.
But where is the data that says that Nilo Saharan words for Pastoral activity made their way into Ancient Egyptian?
It is this particular piece of data that I'm interested in. Is it mere speculation or is there something that I'm missing here?
Although helpful, I can't take Ehrets quote one post back to have a say on this because Ancient Egyptian is a branch of its own, and does not belong to either Cushitic or Nilo Saharan.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Tradition of cattle domestications in different regions appear to have taken independent courses once the domesticated animals were incorporated. This may well explain distinctive lexicon in different regions for these domesticates. Be that as it may, the different pastoralist groups or communities appear to have drawn their cattle domesticates from a common original or ancestral source, as the genetics of the cattle breeds, aside from subsequent cross-breeding efforts, point to a monophylogenetic origin for the domesticated African cattle.
Common sense suggest its probably rare, but how uncommon is it evidence wise for groups that received pastoral lifestyle through diffusion to have unique words for pastoral activity?
What sources do you suggest for reading
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I see it, generally when a commodity is introduced by traders from foreign land, and the commodity is entirely new to a region (destination), there is a high probability of the foreign names of these commodities finding their way into the vocabulary of communities in the destination region. However, in other occasions, if the commodity is determined to be reminiscent of preexisting local material, there is a chance that a local terminology may be used to describe the imported variant or else "look-alike".
I am not questioning the possibility that early cattle domestication may have concurrently and independently been adopted by Nilo-Saharan-speaking pastoralists and Afrisan-speaking pastoralists, but what I gather from DNA information, these pastoralists seem to have drawn their "raw stock" from a common source. I get the impression that the main African breed, the T1 Taurine, was determined to have been the most ideal breed in domestication, from the wild breeds available. As a note, the T1 mutation looks to have been around long before domestication. This highly desirable domesticate quality about the T1 variant may have elevated its status as the most sought-after breed amongst early and subsequent African pastoralists. As such, it would have been a common sight in stock of early African pastoralists. Because of said desirability, domestication pressure and genetic drift may have ensured the relative genetic stability of the T1 lineage.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
After examing available evidence in the disciplines of Linguistics, Genetics and Archaeology, let's examine artistic leads. What do they tell us?
ARTISTIC LEADS
The Neolithic: An agricultural revolution and new way of life
The most important clues to Egypt’s shift to agriculture – the ancient plants and animals themselves – have proven to be controversial sources of information. Even working with the actual remains of early domestic species has provided only limited information and has actually fuelled the controversy rather than solved any mystery. Plant and animal remains recovered through archaeological investigations are often identified by assessing their physical characteristics (size, shape and colour) and visually comparing the archaeological specimens with known wild and domestic examples. When working with seeds and bone fragments that have been subjected to thousands of years of aridity, erosion and in some cases fossilisation, comparisons can be difficult, and clear, unambiguous identifications are rare. Even when identifications of species can be made, determining whether or not the specimen is an early domesticate is almost impossible. Domestication is a long process based on genetic changes that may or may not affect the physical appearance of the plant or animal. Plants and animals at either end of the wildto- domestic spectrum can be classified with some certainty, but those lying along the continuum are hard to identify. Consequently, claims for early domestication and agriculture rely on other, more unequivocal types of evidence such as:
• assessing the ecological fitness of a plant or animal vis-à-vis the local environment – that is, could the organism live in that area without the aid of humans?; • studying the artefacts found in association with the remains, particularly with regard to their use as agricultural tools; • identifying artistic renditions of plants and animals that are depicted on tools, ceramic vessels and other surfaces – in other words, is there graphic evidence of animals in domesticated contexts?
With respect to ancient Egypt, the wild progenitors of wheat, barley, sheep and goat (which, along with cattle and pig, formed the backbone of its domestic economy) were not indigenous. Most scholars therefore believe that many of the domestic species raised in Egypt originated elsewhere and that Paleolithic Egyptians learned agriculture from neighbouring peoples. Archaeological excavations at the site of Merimde in the Nile Delta and at sites in the Fayyum have yielded undisputed evidence of domesticated plants and animals dating to approximately 5000 BC. Domesticated sheep as well as the bones of cattle, pig and goat have been recovered from the earliest levels of Merimde (5005 BC). In the Fayyum, the remains of domestic animals and a series of 168 grain silos containing wheat (Triticum dicorumm) and two types of barley (Hordeum hexastichum and H. distichum) have been dated to 5145 years BC.
Rock art in Egypt’s Western Desert also suggests an early use of domestic plants and animals in the Sahara. Unfortunately, rock art is seldom buried and thus cannot be dated using geological stratification. It is also seldom found in association with other artefacts. (Even when artefacts and drawings are seemingly found together, they can rarely be linked with any degree of certainty.) Therefore, dating the desert rock art depends on less precise methods such as: the internal composition of the picture (are extinct animals or datable artefacts shown?);
• the presence of dated inscriptions (useful for dating historical sites); • the overlapping and cross-cutting relationships of different styles or themes (does one type of representation definitely and consistently overlie another?); • general stylistic trends and patterns of artistic development (is there a consistent trend towards the stylisation of motifs?).
From: Ancient Egypt: Foundations of a Civilization - Douglas J. Brewer
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Neolithic: An agricultural revolution and new way of life
One of the most comprehensive works on Egypt’s desert rock art was compiled by the Swiss art historian Hans Winkler during the late 1930s. Winkler collected and classified rock drawings from 40 different sites in both the Western and Eastern Deserts, and he divided Egypt’s desert rock art into three categories: inscriptions, signs and pictures (Fig. 5.1a, b and c). Although the inscriptions and signs were easy to date, the pictures offered challenges. In an attempt to date the scenes and connect them with particular peoples, he ascribed pictures to one of five periods: Arab, Coptic, Greco-Roman, Dynastic, and undatable prehistoric or Early Predynastic pictures of the Eastern and Western Deserts. Winkler made no attempt to separate engraved scenes from painted or inscribed but rather based his classification on the subjects depicted. His undatable desert categories were further broken down and attributed to four prehistoric groups: indigenous mountain dwellers, early Nile dwellers, eastern invaders and the earliest hunters. In an attempt to bring these prehistoric cultures to life, Winkler described each group of rock art in terms of its major characteristics, such as fauna, weapons, hunting practices, social life and religion. He even went so far as to propose ethnic divisions by comparing depictions of dress with that of modern peoples. By modern anthropological standards, he certainly pushed his interpretations beyond the evidence, but it must be acknowledged that he did distinguish some real differences in prehistoric desert art.
The most ancient rock drawings, as Winkler noted, are quite distinct from anything that came later. Animals, footprints of game, game traps and geometrical designs were standard motifs (Fig. 5.2). He believed the earliest hunters lived along the Nile, evidenced by drawings of crocodiles, and that they possessed dogs and used the bow and arrow (Fig. 5.3). Winkler thought these earliest hunters were succeeded by cattle pastoralists, which he named ‘indigenous mountain dwellers’ because he believed they were speakers of an ancient Hamitic language (a group that includes ancient Egyptian and modern Berber) who emigrated from the Nile Valley out on to the Eastern and Western Deserts. Although the rock drawings suggested to Winkler that these cattle pastoralists still hunted wild animals like ibex, antelope and ostrich, he thought that the most commonly depicted animals – long-horned cattle – were thoroughly domesticated (Plate 7). He based this conclusion on drawings showing the artificial deformation of the cattle’s horns (a practice known in ancient Egypt) and on the care the artists took in representing the udder, which suggested that they were using these cattle for milk (Fig. 5.4).
A comparison of the frequency of animals depicted in paintings with those in engravings led a later scholar, William McHugh, to conclude that engraved hunting scenes preceded painted pastoral scenes. In his analysis, he stressed that the paintings and engravings Winkler tabulated portrayed significantly different species. Although cattle are the most abundant individual species in both types of rock art, they comprise almost 98 per cent of the animals depicted in Winkler’s painted scenes compared with only 32 per cent in the engravings. On the other hand, wild animals (excluding jackals, as it is difficult to separate them from domestic dogs) comprise 62 per cent of all animals in the engraved scenes but only 2 per cent of those in the painted scenes.
Although rock art does provide tantalising clues about some of Egypt’s earliest pastoralists, the evidence is not indisputable. New and even more compelling evidence for the earliest use of domestic plants and animals in Egypt comes from recent archaeological excavations in Egypt’s Nabta Playa, located deep in the Western Desert (Figs 5.5 and 4.5). Here, bones believed to be those of domestic cattle were recovered in direct association with cultural materials thought to be nearly 10,000 years old. The argument for these remains’ being domesticated animals is built, however, on ecological criteria rather than on the morphology of the recovered skeletal elements because the recovered cattle bones are indistinguishable from those of wild cattle. Researchers have postulated that the environment, which supported hare and gazelle whose bones were also recovered, was too arid to support cattle, which have greater water requirements for survival. Therefore, cattle could only exist in the area if tended by humans.
What Nabta suggests and what the rock art tends to support is that domestic animals and plants might have been present in the desert as early as or even earlier than in the Nile Valley. Within the context of Nabta living sites, ash from fire hearths produced a rich assortment of plant remains. Clearly, the hearths were being used as cooking pits. Plants identified include legumes, grass grains, mustard seeds, nabk berries (Christ thorn), millet and sorghum. Seed size and structure, however, all correspond to known wild races. Interestingly, today these species occur naturally in the arid savanna some 600– 700 km (372.8–434.9 miles) south of Nabta, suggesting that a northerly shift of the savanna had occurred by 6000 BC. Furthermore, although the plant remains recovered appeared to be morphologically identical to wild forms, spectrographic analysis of sorghum grains and a study of their lipids suggest the possibility that at least the sorghum might have been cultivated.
From: Ancient Egypt: Foundations of a Civilization - Douglas J. Brewer
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The way I see it, generally when a commodity is introduced by traders from foreign land, and the commodity is entirely new to a region (destination), there is a high probability of the foreign names of these commodities finding their way into the vocabulary of communities in the destination region. However, in other occasions, if the commodity is determined to be reminiscent of preexisting local material, there is a chance that a local terminology may be used to describe the imported variant or else "look-alike".
Makes sense. We can see this happening with modern innovations as well, with pre existing words like ''web'' being used to give rise to the new term ''web log'' aka blog, and pc cams being called ''web cam'' etc.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I am not questioning the possibility that early cattle domestication may have concurrently and independently been adopted by Nilo-Saharan-speaking pastoralists and Afrisan-speaking pastoralists, but what I gather from DNA information, these pastoralists seem to have drawn their "raw stock" from a common source. I get the impression that the main African breed, the T1 Taurine, was determined to have been the most ideal breed in domestication, from the wild breeds available. As a note, the T1 mutation looks to have been around long before domestication. This highly desirable domesticate quality about the T1 variant may have elevated its status as the most sought-after breed amongst early and subsequent African pastoralists. As such, it would have been a common sight in stock of early African pastoralists. Because of said desirability, domestication pressure and genetic drift may have ensured the relative genetic stability of the T1 lineage.
I agree that this shared mutation, which shows that cattle was ''tapped'' from an ancestral source, in combination with unique words for pastoral activity in both African linguistic branches is all the more indication that a teaching scenario of pastoralism from (Nilo Saharan) pastoralists to (Cushitic) hunter gatherers is unlikely.
Simple imitation behavior, without much pastoral specific interaction between hunter gathers and pastoralists would have bypassed both lines of evidence mentioned above, how would one detect such a scenario scientifically?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
It is entirely appropriate to note that when the international salvage efforts began, there was virtually no information available on the prehistoric development anywhere in Nubia, and even in Egypt little was known concerning prehistoric materials beyond a few scattered and rolled pieces found in ancient deposits along the Nile. From this limited evidence, archaeologists had concluded that the Nile Valley, both Nubia and Egypt, has been a culturally conservative cul-de-sac where the technological and typological attributes of the Middle Paleolithic survived relatively unchanged until near the end of the Pleistocene. The lithic industries of Late Paleolithic age along the Nile Valley were believed to be limited to a few simple tool types, usually made on flakes, and with a high frequency of the Levallois technology which elsewhere is characteristic of the Middle Paleolithic. Those diagnostic elements of the Late Paleolithic -the blade technology and the associated complex of tools emphasizing end-scrapers, burins, and backed pieces -were believed to be absent. These simple flake industries were seen as persisting long after com pound tools, indicated by the presence of geometric microliths, had appeared in Europe and southwest Asia.
At a still later date, the role of the Nile Valley in the origin and development of food production was also discounted as it became fashionable to regard the upland areas around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers as the probable center for the origins of agriculture.
Perhaps the major result of the Nubia prehistoric campaign was to lay to rest these concepts of Nilotic cultural conservatism. The Nubian work not only disclosed the presence of numerous rich prehistoric living sites ranging in age from Early Paleolithic to the beginning of written records, but these sites yielded convincing evidence that they had been occupied by groups whose lithic technology and typology were fully as complex and as progressive as those from other parts of the world.
There is no evidence that these early efforts to use grain for food resulted in a corresponding primary development of food production, but they were an important first step which may ultimately have led to the crucial achievement of food production, either along the Nile or elsewhere in the Near East.
The Combined Prehistoric Expedition surveyed and located several hundred prehistoric sites within the assigned concession areas, and of these, 102 sites were excavated and studied systematically. These range from Early Paleolithic to Neolithic. The final reports on these studies have been published in several volumes (Wendorf, 1965 and 1968; Marks, 1970). The Prehistoric sites in Nubia have been grouped into five broad cultural stages, and within each stage several distinct lithic industries were defined.
The stages may be summarized as follows:
Nubian Early Stone Age:
The sites of this stage are typologically and technologically within the range of the Acheulean complex and share many resemblances with the Middle and Late Acheulean from further south, especially Klor Abu Anga near Khartoum, Sudan. No living sites of this group are known, only quarries and workshops. Ferrocrete sandstone was preferred for tool production, although quartz was also important in some sites. Bifaces were the most common tools, while cleavers, trihedral forms, and para-Levallois flakes are rare. Levallois technology appears during the middle phase of this stage and becomes increasingly important thereafter. Nubian Early Stone Age sites occur only in the Older Pediments. None are known to occur within the silts of the river.
Nubian Middle Stone Age: This stage is generally equivalent to the Middle Paleolithic elsewhere. It contains four distinct industries the Nubian Mousterian, Denticulate Mousterian and the Nubian Middle Paleolithic and the Khormusan. The latter has affinities with the Sangoan-Lupemban of central and west Africa; the first two are more similar to the Mousterian complexes of the Near East and Europe. The first three of these industries share the following features: a nearly complete absence of handaxes (these are replaced by biface foliates or flake tools); a strong preference for ferrocrete sandstone for tools; and a frequent use of Levallois technology (although this varies among the three industries of this stage). Sites of these three industries occur only in the Older Pediments. The Khormusan sites occur imbedded in the oldest Nile silts known in the part of the Valley and are believed to date between 65,000 and 55,000 years old. Khormusan sites record a diverse food economy.
They contain an abundance of fish remains as well as numerous bones of wild cattle, gazelle and hartebeest. In addition to the typical wide, flat Levallois flakes, the Khormusan sites contain numerous burins (a kind of engraving tool), scrapers and perforators.
Nubian Upper Stone Age:
Three distinct industries are also included in this stage: the Khormusan, the Gemian, and the Sebilian. Each of these industries is markedly different from the others, but as a group they share an emphasis on medium-sized flakes for the manufacture of tools; the biface foliates of the preceding stage are gone, and there are no true geometric, microlithic, or backed microblade tools characteristic of later stage. Except for the Sebilian, which differs sharply from all other known lithic assemblages in Nubia, sites of this stage yield increasing frequencies of artifacts made on Nile pebbles, while burins, endscrapers, and retouched points occur commonly in one or the other industries. The Sebilian retains the emphasis on ferrocrete sandstone preferred during the earlier stages, and the tools of this industry emphasized various kinds of truncations. These differences have led to the suggestion that the Sebilians were an outside, non-Nilotic group who briefly intruded into the area. In some respects they have close affiliations to some of the industries known farther south in central Africa -especially the Tshitolian.
Nubian Final Stone Age:
This stage contains four distinct industries: the Halfan, the Qadan, the Arkinian, and the Shamarkian. All of these industries share a tendency for the retouched tools to be microlithic, suggesting extensive use of composite tools. They also all make frequent use of microblades and bladelets in the manufacture of finished tools, and Nile chert pebbles were used almost exclusively as raw material for these tools. The Nile and its resources, especially fish, become increasingly important, and it is during this stage that the first use of ground grain occurs. There is an overlap in time between the Nubian Final Stone Age and the preceeding Nubian Upper Stone Age. The earliest Nubian Final Stone Age sites (the Halfan) occur in situ in Nile silts and have radiocarbon dates of around 17,000 B.G., while the Nubian Upper Stone Age probably begins before 20,000 B.G., but survives as a technological stage represented by the Sebilian, as late as 9,000 B.G.
Nubian Ceramic Age:
This stage includes at least three distinct lithic industries in Nubia. Pottery, the diagnostic feature of this stage, first appears in the final phase of the Shamarkian industry, and is also present in two distinct and seemingly contemporary groups named the Abkan and Khartum Variant. Both the Shamarkian and Abkan ceramics appear to be stimulated by Egyptia sources; however, the Khartum Variant pottery clearly is similar to that of Shaheinab in central Sudan. All three industries share an emphasis on large flake tools, and the Abkan and Shamarkian sites are dramatically larger than those known previously in Nubia. This change of settlement size may indicate the appearance in Nubia of a new economic resource -possibly cultivation.
--Fred Wendorf
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Lots of Khartoum "Mesolithic" interrelated stuff.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic