The above PDF file is a long resume of an international conference held in France last year between September 5-8. I don't know if this has been posted already on the forum, but I'm in the process of reading it and would like to get everyone's opinion on it. My guess is, it discusses the roots of dynastic Egypt and talks in length about Pre-Dynastic Egypt.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is looking good so far...here's an excerpt, it's discussing what they call 'linguistic archeology...
...consideration of the Afro-Asian context of the Old Egyptian and the too little explored connections of the Egyptian culture with the cultures and the languages of Sub-Saharan Africa (Blench & Spriggs 1999: 21-28)
Later on, on page 10 of 133, right above the bolded 'bibliography' it reads,
"Can we suppose after the split-up of the Afro-asiatic unity, the Proto-Egyptian tribes had a long coexistence with the ancestors of Chadic as well as of Nilo-Saharan somewhere in the Saharan macro-area? Can we idenify the bearers of the paleolithic-neolithic Saharan culture with a wide conglomoration in which Proto-Egypto-Chadic and other ancient African (Nilo-Saharan, Bantu, etc...) populations also could have taken part? Can we suppose that the Proto-Egyptian tribes migrated from the south or the south-west to Upper Egypt to gradually occupy the entire Nile Valley? Can we suppose a later (secondary) Egypto-Semitic coexistence already in the neolithic Nile Valley and place it after the split up of the Chadic-Egyptian union?" (Takacs 1999:47)
Some heavy stuff finally being admitted here.
EDIT:
This is setting a standard...you HAVE to go to page 44 of 133. It's titled, 'At the Origin of the Egyptian Civilization: Reconsidering the Relationship Between Egypt and Nubia in the Pre- and Proto-Dynastic Periods. -By Maria Carmela Gatto (British Museum, London)Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't know how accurate it is though...just skimming through it.
EDIT #2: I'd really like someone to elaborate on this Semitic influence they speak of in Lower Egypt. Here's another lengthy essay on this whole era...
posted
The isssue here is one of chronology. Settlement sites have been found in the delta from about 6,000 B.C. However, as he says in the beginning of that page, much of the influence that would lay the foundations of Egypt would come from South and West.
There were Neolithic sites in the South West (Nabta Playa) that included evidence of cattle cults and some agriculture, etc. But for whatever reason he does not include such in this page. The Early Khartoum was also an important Neolithic site on the Sudanese Nile and was important to the development of the Nilotic cultures. Once again he does not give it much coverage.
But there have been many discoveries in the delta of communities and some of their artworks. We have a thread somewhere here on Egyptsearch about one such discovery, with some very rich artifacts. The main thing was that it was VERY unlike the stuff coming from the South.
There are a lot of discoveries being made all over Egypt, but as I said, when it comes to this period it is a question of chronology and which came first. There is no doubt however that the earliest settlement activity along the Nile is in the south, from 100,000 or more years ago up to 6,000. The Fayum didnt begin until a late period.
Southern areas of the Nile have the more ancient development history, leading to Khartoum, Nabta Playa, the "A Group" and ultimately Upper Egyptian kingship and some cultural patterns that became characteristic of dynastic Egypt as well. There is pretty much no doubt about that. As he said, there is evidence of mummification from about 5000 B.C. in the Sahara. Until they do more excavations there, they will be missing more evidence of settlement activity and cultural traits directly related to the Nilotic civilizations.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The isssue here is one of chronology. Settlement sites have been found in the delta from about 6,000 B.C. However, as he says in the beginning of that page, much of the influence that would lay the foundations of Egypt would come from South and West.
There were Neolithic sites in the South West (Nabta Playa) that included evidence of cattle cults and some agriculture, etc. But for whatever reason he does not include such in this page. The Early Khartoum was also an important Neolithic site on the Sudanese Nile and was important to the development of the Nilotic cultures. Once again he does not give it much coverage.
But there have been many discoveries in the delta of communities and some of their artworks. We have a thread somewhere here on Egyptsearch about one such discovery, with some very rich artifacts. The main thing was that it was VERY unlike the stuff coming from the South.
There are a lot of discoveries being made all over Egypt, but as I said, when it comes to this period it is a question of chronology and which came first. There is no doubt however that the earliest settlement activity along the Nile is in the south, from 100,000 or more years ago up to 6,000. The Fayum didnt begin until a late period.
Southern areas of the Nile have the more ancient development history, leading to Khartoum, Nabta Playa, the "A Group" and ultimately Upper Egyptian kingship and some cultural patterns that became characteristic of dynastic Egypt as well. There is pretty much no doubt about that. As he said, there is evidence of mummification from about 5000 B.C. in the Sahara. Until they do more excavations there, they will be missing more evidence of settlement activity and cultural traits directly related to the Nilotic civilizations.
Good post Doug. This is an exciting subject and it makes me wonder how people can still claim Ancient Kemet was "unique" in its development (implying what many Westerners do about Greece and the European Renassiance...that it just came up out of no where, ignoring the impact of the Levant and to a smaller extent Egypt on Greece, and the impact of Islam on the Renassiance).
But the reason I think that PDF link is so important is that it's proof that maybe we're seeing the dawning of a new era in the historical community. I read something (I think it's part of that .pdf file) that said many people in the said community see it as being way too conservative. This implies that new theories and ideas will be promoted instead of just swept under the rug and ridiculed. Most of what is written above is not new to some of us, but a lot of what we've been talking about in this forum is now starting to be talked about and accepted on their level.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic