posted
Is there any research that affirms or dispels this idea? If there's any that could give an idea on just how much more or less AE lived in upper Egypt compared to lower Egypt, that'd be great to know too, thanks!
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
More Egyptians lived in lower Egypt because the Nile fans out into tributaries and there's more arable land there
virtually no evidence exists for human occupation in the Nile valley between 10,000 and 6,000 BC except for a group of very small sites around 9,400 BC at the second cataract. A hiatus in radiocarbon dates suggests the valley was barren of settlements during that period.
The archaeological evidence shows two different emerging cultures, one in the Delta, and one in upper Egypt, centered around the great bend in the Nile, the location of modern Qina, and overland routes from the Red Sea locations now known as Bur Safajah and Al Qusayr. These routes of travel between the Nile and the Red Sea have been known since ancient times. Radiocarbon dating suggests the settlements in the Delta may somewhat predate those in upper Egypt.
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes more modern Egyptians live in the delta than in the valley, but apparently you've 'forgotten' that wasn't the case in ancient times much less predynastic times as the delta was originally a vast marshland. This is precisely why the earliest settlments were at the neck of the delta (in the Fayum) and the great majority were in the valley.
It took millennia of artificial drainage, irrigation, and terra-forming to create the farmlands of the modern delta.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes more modern Egyptians live in the delta than in the valley, but apparently you've 'forgotten' that wasn't the case in ancient times much less predynastic times as the delta was originally a vast marshland. This is precisely why the earliest settlments were at the neck of the delta (in the Fayum) and the great majority were in the valley.
During prehistory, more people lived in the Fayoum than in the Nile Valley. The red dots are position of settlements, no indication of size, marshland was only partial
Note two uppermost settlements indicated by red dots on the Delta on map D, far right, 5,300-3,500 B.C. ^^^
It is unfortunate that until fairly recently the archaeology of the Delta has largely been disregarded, an error primarily due not only to the mistaken early impression that it was unimportant in Egypt's formative periods, but also because of the difficulties of conducting archaeological excavations there. Knowledge about Predynastic settlement patterns in Lower Egypt (the Delta) is limited, due to the low numbers of sites that have been found and excavated. The inner Delta, which is a vital area as it is possible that it was the key area of northern Predynastic Egyptian settlement (which it was in later Dynastic periods), has yet to yield a Predynastic site. Nearly all the sites are covered either by the watertable (for which special archaeological water-logged excavation techniques are currently being developed) or by more modern communities. Sites excavated at the Delta apex and its margins reveal a different Predynastic cultural pattern to that existing in Upper Egypt, yet they are too few to be able to determine between geographical and temporal cultural variations.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: During prehistory, more people lived in the Fayoum than in the Nile Valley. The red dots are position of settlements, no indication of size, marshland was only partial.
So you agree that there were far more settlements in the valley than in the delta but where is the evidence that the populations of the Fayum settlments were greater than all the settlments in the valley?? Also, all archaeological and geological evidence shows that the delta was predominantly marsh. Settlers in the delta had to drain areas of land before they can farm them.
quote:
Note two uppermost settlements indicated by red dots on the Delta on map D, far right, 5,300-3,500 B.C. ^^^
What's your point? Notice that in all the other prior periods the ONLY settlement in the Delta was in the Fayum only and in the first map (8,500 B.C) there were no settlements in the Delta at all. It becomes obvious that Delta folk slowly spread further north and east but only in the later periods again for the reasons I stated of taming the marshland.
quote:It is unfortunate that until fairly recently the archaeology of the Delta has largely been disregarded, an error primarily due not only to the mistaken early impression that it was unimportant in Egypt's formative periods, but also because of the difficulties of conducting archaeological excavations there. Knowledge about Predynastic settlement patterns in Lower Egypt (the Delta) is limited, due to the low numbers of sites that have been found and excavated. The inner Delta, which is a vital area as it is possible that it was the key area of northern Predynastic Egyptian settlement (which it was in later Dynastic periods), has yet to yield a Predynastic site. Nearly all the sites are covered either by the watertable (for which special archaeological water-logged excavation techniques are currently being developed) or by more modern communities. Sites excavated at the Delta apex and its margins reveal a different Predynastic cultural pattern to that existing in Upper Egypt, yet they are too few to be able to determine between geographical and temporal cultural variations.
the majority of the Egyptian population lived in Lower Egypt.
And pray tell where in the source you cited does it confirm your claims??
Meanwhile here is an actual source below confirming what Ausar, others, and myself have been saying-- that populations of the Delta throughout ancient times have always been lower than the valley.
It would be of great help if Oshun or anyone else were to make a copy of table 4 and post it to quell the dishonest trolls.
By the way, the author bases is findings on the size of the settlements specifically number of dwellings found as well as size of cemeteries i.e. actual indicators of population size.
It seems lioness has a penchant for arguing for the sake of espousing her own views and agenda without the benefit of facts to back up her claims. *sigh* Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] During prehistory, more people lived in the Fayoum than in the Nile Valley. The red dots are position of settlements, no indication of size, marshland was only partial.
So you agree that there were far more settlements in the valley than in the delta
Yes
but the thread question is "Most AE lived in upper Egypt?"
Sources I read said lower egypt had a larger population than upper Egypt.
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes more modern Egyptians live in the delta than in the valley, but apparently you've 'forgotten' that wasn't the case in ancient times much less predynastic times as the delta was originally a vast marshland. This is precisely why the earliest settlments were at the neck of the delta (in the Fayum) and the great majority were in the valley.
It took millennia of artificial drainage, irrigation, and terra-forming to create the farmlands of the modern delta.
Just to nab the ref but where'd that pic come from?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Is there any research that affirms or dispels this idea? If there's any that could give an idea on just how much more or less AE lived in upper Egypt compared to lower Egypt, that'd be great to know too, thanks!
why do you ask?
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: More Egyptians lived in lower Egypt because the Nile fans out into tributaries and there's more arable land there
SMH
quote:Karl Butzer has estimated that two areas of greatest population denisty in dyanstic times were between Luxor{Waset} and Aswan {Elephantine} at the first cataract,and from Medium at the fayum entrance northwards to the apex of the Delta. In between was Middle Egypt,a geogrpahic buffer zone with a lower population density. It is worth bearing in mind that the total population of egypt at the time the Giza pyramids were built is estimated to have been 1.6 million,compared with 58 million in Ad 1995."
—Mark Lehner, Page 7. The Complete Pyramids: Solving the Ancient Mysteries
quote:"It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was ALMOST UNDERPOPULATED in Old Kingdom times. In effect , a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was UNDERDEVELOPED and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era."
So not only were there overall more settlements in the valley than in the delta... But that these settlments were indeed larger and more heavily populated than the delta.
^ Read the numbers, twit!
unbelievable that's your interpretation this chart is showing larger numbers in the delta from 2,500 BC ( from the 5th dynasty onward) and being the same in 4000 BC The question is can you read?
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
virtually no evidence exists for human occupation in the Nile valley between 10,000 and 6,000 BC except for a group of very small sites around 9,400 BC at the second cataract. A hiatus in radiocarbon dates suggests the valley was barren of settlements during that periodt.
SMH
quote:
Our article presents a detailed Holocene archaeological sequence from the Nile Valley at Kerma in Upper Nubia, northern Sudan. This sequence retraces the evolution of human populations thanks to the study of several sites, supported by 90 14C dates. Reconstruction of the environmental changes was supported by a study of dated stratigraphic sections located near the archaeological sites studied, and illustrates the effects on human occupation of changes in river flow and floods, which are in turn forced by climatic changes. The results shed new light on the evolutionary dynamics of the Holocene populations in Nile Valley, little known due to the numerous hiatuses in occupation. When compared with the situation in the Sahara and the rest of the Nile Valley, they confirm that the initial occupation took place ca. 10.5 kyr BP after the start of the African Humid Period, followed by a migration towards the banks of the Nile commencing 7.3 kyr BP. They also confirm the appearance of the Neolithic by ca. 8.0 kyr BP. The Kerma stratigraphic sequences show two prosperous periods (10–8 and 7-6 kyr BP) and two hiatuses in the occupation of the sites (7.5–7.1 and 6.0–5.4 kyr BP), resulting from increased aridity.
—Matthieu Honeggera, Martin Williams b et al.
Human occupations and environmental changes in the Nile valley during the Holocene: The case of Kerma in Upper Nubia (northern Sudan)
El- Barga reveals one of the most important necropoleis of the early Holocene in Africa.
This site was discovered in 2001 during a survey concentrating on the zones bordering the alluvial plain. The name el-Barga is borrowed from a nearby mountain. The site is located on an elevation formed by an outcrop of bedrock (Nubian sandstone) less than 15 km from the Nile, as the crow flies. It includes a settlement area dated to circa 7500 B.C. and cemeteries belonging to two distinct periods.
The habitation is a circular hut slightly less than five metres in diameter, its maximum depth exceeding 50 centimetres. This semi-subterranean structure contained a wealth of artefacts resulting from the site’s occupation (ceramics, grinding tools, flint objects, ostrich eggshell beads, a mother-of-pearl pendant, bone tools, faunal remains, shells). The abundance of artefacts discovered suggests a marked inclination towards a sedentary lifestyle, even though certain activities (fishing and hunting) necessitate seasonal migration.
North of this habitation, about forty burials were dated to the Epipalaeolithic (7700-7000 B.C.) and generally do not contain any furnishings. On the other hand, the Neolithic cemetery (6000-5500 B.C.) located further south comprises about a hundred burials often containing artefacts (adornment, ceramics, flint or bone objects).
quote: Supraregional investigations of the Holocene occupational history of the eastern Sahara west of the Nile combined with the study of climatic, environmental, and geomorphological archives were carried out in contrasting desert regions from the Mediterranean coast strip to Wadi Howar in Sudan. The research areas are located far away from groundwater influence and are therefore capable of indicating environmental changes. Climatic development in accordance with nearly 500 14C dates from archaeological sites indicates a Holocene optimum lasting from approximately 9500 B.P. till the beginning of the drying trend that set in about 6300 B.P. (9000–5300 cal. B.C.). Although the faunal and floral remains are arid types, they indicate slightly wetter conditions than today. Surface water was the key factor that influenced the adaptation strategies of the mobile hunter-gatherers (and in some parts, the pastoralists) in the desert regions. Large episodic camp sites agglomerated at favorable drainage systems and water pools, and settlement patterns strongly correlate with the paleohydrological factors examined with remote sensing cartography, geomorphological work, and the analysis of digital elevation models.
—Olaf Bubenzer, Heiko Riemer
First published: 27 June 2007 DOI: 10.1002/gea.20176
Wadi Howar in Sudan
Holocene climatic change and human settlement between the central Sahara and the Nile Valley: Archaeological and geomorphological results
quote:Wadi Howar is one of the most remarkable natural features of the south Eastern Sahars. It was proclaimed on the 18th of July 2001, with an area of 100 thousand km sq. as one of the largest national park in the world, with diverse flora and outstanding geological features including the volcanic and crater landscape of Meidob Hills, Jebel Rahib complex .... etc. Numerous paleo lakes and large active barachen done fields also exist. Dorcas gazelle, barberg shepp, ostrich and others also exist. The wadi was the largest Nile's tributary from the Sahara between 9500 -3000 years before present.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes more modern Egyptians live in the delta than in the valley, but apparently you've 'forgotten' that wasn't the case in ancient times much less predynastic times as the delta was originally a vast marshland. This is precisely why the earliest settlments were at the neck of the delta (in the Fayum) and the great majority were in the valley.
It took millennia of artificial drainage, irrigation, and terra-forming to create the farmlands of the modern delta.
Cosigned.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
virtually no evidence exists for human occupation in the Nile valley between 10,000 and 6,000 BC except for a group of very small sites around 9,400 BC at the second cataract. A hiatus in radiocarbon dates suggests the valley was barren of settlements during that periodt.
SMH
El- Barga reveals one of the most important necropoleis of the early Holocene in Africa.
This site was discovered in 2001 during a survey concentrating on the zones bordering the alluvial plain. The name el-Barga is borrowed from a nearby mountain. The site is located on an elevation formed by an outcrop of bedrock (Nubian sandstone) less than 15 km from the Nile, as the crow flies. It includes a settlement area dated to circa 7500 B.C. and cemeteries belonging to two distinct periods.
The habitation is a circular hut slightly less than five metres in diameter, its maximum depth exceeding 50 centimetres. This semi-subterranean structure contained a wealth of artefacts resulting from the site’s occupation (ceramics, grinding tools, flint objects, ostrich eggshell beads, a mother-of-pearl pendant, bone tools, faunal remains, shells). The abundance of artefacts discovered suggests a marked inclination towards a sedentary lifestyle, even though certain activities (fishing and hunting) necessitate seasonal migration.
North of this habitation, about forty burials were dated to the Epipalaeolithic (7700-7000 B.C.) and generally do not contain any furnishings. On the other hand, the Neolithic cemetery (6000-5500 B.C.) located further south comprises about a hundred burials often containing artefacts (adornment, ceramics, flint or bone objects).
Try to focus, el-Barga is a small site of around 100 graves dated after 6,000 B.C.
Do something productive, the thread question is which had a larger population Upper or Lower Egypt (who was better) Try to find quotes directly addressing that. If you find some that say that lower Egypt had a larger population, just pretend you never saw it
Population density of settlements within each region is irrelevant to the answer of the question
The number of settlements in one of these regions is also irrelevant to the question
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
virtually no evidence exists for human occupation in the Nile valley between 10,000 and 6,000 BC except for a group of very small sites around 9,400 BC at the second cataract. A hiatus in radiocarbon dates suggests the valley was barren of settlements during that periodt.
SMH
El- Barga reveals one of the most important necropoleis of the early Holocene in Africa.
This site was discovered in 2001 during a survey concentrating on the zones bordering the alluvial plain. The name el-Barga is borrowed from a nearby mountain. The site is located on an elevation formed by an outcrop of bedrock (Nubian sandstone) less than 15 km from the Nile, as the crow flies. It includes a settlement area dated to circa 7500 B.C. and cemeteries belonging to two distinct periods.
The habitation is a circular hut slightly less than five metres in diameter, its maximum depth exceeding 50 centimetres. This semi-subterranean structure contained a wealth of artefacts resulting from the site’s occupation (ceramics, grinding tools, flint objects, ostrich eggshell beads, a mother-of-pearl pendant, bone tools, faunal remains, shells). The abundance of artefacts discovered suggests a marked inclination towards a sedentary lifestyle, even though certain activities (fishing and hunting) necessitate seasonal migration.
North of this habitation, about forty burials were dated to the Epipalaeolithic (7700-7000 B.C.) and generally do not contain any furnishings. On the other hand, the Neolithic cemetery (6000-5500 B.C.) located further south comprises about a hundred burials often containing artefacts (adornment, ceramics, flint or bone objects).
Try to focus, el-Barga is a small site of around 100 graves dated after 6,000 B.C.
Do something productive, the thread question is which had a larger population Upper or Lower Egypt (who was better) Try to find quotes directly addressing that. If you find some that say that lower Egypt had a larger population, just pretend you never saw it
Population density of settlements within each region is irrelevant to the answer of the question
The number of settlements in one of these regions is also irrelevant to the question [/QUOTE]
You obliterate lying hog.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: virtually no evidence exists for human occupation in the Nile valley between 10,000 and 6,000 BC except for a group of very small sites around 9,400 BC at the second cataract. A hiatus in radiocarbon dates suggests the valley was barren of settlements during that periodt.
—the lioness lying team.
SMH
quote:
The third site, named El-Barga, has yielded a hut base dug into the Nubian sandstone dating from 9.5 kyr BP. Close-by extends a Mesolithic cemetery containing approximately 50 tombs dated between 9.8 and 9 kyr BP (Honegger, 2004b, 2006).
A second necropolis, further south, contained some 100 tombs dating from the Early Neolithic between 8 and 7.5 kyr BP. The contrast between the Mesolithic and Neolithic burials is striking (Honegger, 2006) and evokes those brought to light in central Sahara (Sereno et al., 2008).
The individuals from the earlier burials have a robust morphology and are seldom buried with personal adornments. By contrast, the later ones are more gracile and are accompanied by offerings and per- sonal effects, mostly made up of tools and adornments made of polished stone, which was a new technique in the region (axe blades, beads, labrets and ear-rings).
The pottery presents either surfaces covered in impressed decorations as was evidenced from inception (Sudanese Style) (Jesse, 2010), or a burnished surface, whose evolution has been traced in the western desert and which was diffused from the north to the south from ca. 8.5 kyr BP, and which could be more or less synchronous with the flow of Neolithic diffusion (Riemer, 2007). Finally, a bucranium was deposited on top of a tomb, which must of necessity have been from a domesticated bovid, given that the wild aurochs is not present during the Neolithic south of the second cataract (Linseele, 2004). This cemetery, which is the oldest known for the African Neolithic, announces at an early date the rites that were practiced in the Nubian necropolises from the 7th millennium BP (Chaix, 2011).
—Matthieu Honeggera, Martin Williams b et al.
Human occupations and environmental changes in the Nile valley during the Holocene: The case of Kerma in Upper Nubia (northern Sudan)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Try to focus, el-Barga is a small site of around 100 graves dated after 6,000 B.C.
Do something productive, the thread question is which had a larger population Upper or Lower Egypt (who was better) Try to find quotes directly addressing that. If you find some that say that lower Egypt had a larger population, just pretend you never saw it
Population density of settlements within each region is irrelevant to the answer of the question
The number of settlements in one of these regions is also irrelevant to the question
You demented one.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: More Egyptians lived in lower Egypt because the Nile fans out into tributaries and there's more arable land there
—the lioness lying team SMH
1) You don't decide what people should focus on.
2) Your proposal has been dismissed already. So you can stop boasting your alternative facts.
quote:Karl Butzer has estimated that two areas of greatest population denisty in dyanstic times were between Luxor{Waset} and Aswan {Elephantine} at the first cataract,and from Medium at the fayum entrance northwards to the apex of the Delta. In between was Middle Egypt,a geogrpahic buffer zone with a lower population density. It is worth bearing in mind that the total population of egypt at the time the Giza pyramids were built is estimated to have been 1.6 million,compared with 58 million in Ad 1995."
—Mark Lehner, Page 7. The Complete Pyramids: Solving the Ancient Mysteries
quote:"It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was ALMOST UNDERPOPULATED in Old Kingdom times. In effect , a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was UNDERDEVELOPED and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era."
quote: "...sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
—Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Routledge. (2006) p. 52-60)
quote:Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
quote:Christopher Ehret noted that the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent.
--Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia
quote:The Natufians existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant 15,000 to 11,500 years ago. Dr. Grosman suggests this grave could point to ideological shifts that took place due to the transition to agriculture in the region at that time.
quote: Examination of African barbed bone points recovered from Holocene sites provides a context to interpret three Late Pleistocene occurrences from Katanda and Ishango, Zaire, and White Paintings Shelter, Botswana. In sites dated to ca. 10,000 BP and younger, such artifacts are found widely distributed across the Sahara Desert, the Sahel, the Nile, and the East African Lakes. They are present in both ceramic and aceramic contexts, sometimes associated with domesticates. The almost-universal presence of fish remains indicates a subsistence adaptation which incorporates a riverine/lacustrine component. Typologically these points exhibit sufficient similarity in form and method of manufacture to be subsumed within a single African “tradition.” They are absent at Fayum, where a distinct Natufian form occurs. Specimens dating to ca. 20,000 BP at Ishango, possibly a similar age at White Paintings Shelter, and up to 90,000 BP at Katanda clearly fall within this same African tradition and thus indicate a very long-term continuity which crosses traditionally conceived sub-Saharan cultural boundaries.
--John E. Yellen
September 1998, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 173–198 Barbed Bone Points: Tradition and Continuity in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] I'm..just a bit confused now. I am trying to gather what you feel lioness is implying posting this (hence the quotes in the post above)????
You need to understand that Ish Gebor just loves quoting. Often you see the quotes and think that they must be a rebuttal to the previous post. They might be on the topic but often they aren't directly related to a particular point that was made. He just has a love of the art of quoting
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope people understand that the Faiyum was actually part of Upper Egypt until the concept of "Middle Egypt" was created in the 19th Century for administrative purposes.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I'm..just a bit confused now. I am trying to gather what you feel lioness is implying posting this (hence the quotes in the post above)????
quote:Linguistics and writing can give some clues to migration or major cultural interactions. Semitic and perhaps Sumerian speakers in the Near East developed agriculture some 2,000 years before it emerged in the Nile Valley. If Egypt had been peopled by a mass migration of farmers from the Near East, ancient Egyptians would have spoken either a Semitic language or Sumerian (considered a language isolate, meaning that it has no obvious close relatives). Although certain major domesticated species used in Egypt came from the Near East, it is interesting to note that the words for these in Egyptian were not borrowed from any members of the Semitic family whose common ancestor had terms for them. They are all Egyptian. The beginnings of Egyptian writing can be traced back to the cultures that led to dynastic Egypt. Flora and fauna used in the hieroglyphs are Nilotic, indicating that the writing system developed locally, with some symbols traceable back to a period before the first dynasty rulers emerged. The titles for the king, major officials, and the royal insignia are Egyptian, which is of interest because one old theory held that the dynastic Egyptians or their elites came from the Near East; however, the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt.
—S. O. Y. Keita, Senior Research Associate, National Human Genome Center, Howard University; Research Associate, Anthropology, Smithsonian Institute
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I hope people understand that the Faiyum was actually part of Upper Egypt until the concept of "Middle Egypt" was created in the 19th Century for administrative purposes.
Not all people do, obviously.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I hope people understand that the Faiyum was actually part of Upper Egypt until the concept of "Middle Egypt" was created in the 19th Century for administrative purposes.
Not all people do, obviously.
Nope they dont know. THat is why they make dumb argument about Upper Vs Lower and dont realize what "Lower" really is. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
That map really does put it all into perspective; the two portions of Egypt were never equal in terms of size, importance, sophistication, power, organisation, wealth and demographics.
Upper Egypt truly was the heart of ancient Egypt.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
There are 23 dots in Upper Egypt and 13 in Lower Egypt that means there were more people in Upper Egypt right? No it means people have poor reasoning skills and poor research skills. One nome may have had 500 people another 100. These maps do not answer the question how many people lived in Upper Egypt compared to Lower Egypt. It doesn't tell you how many people were in each settlement.
It's funny why this is an issue
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Early Hydraulic Civilization in Ancient Egypt Karl W. Butzer
Only Elmaestro understood the thread topic, how many people were in each region. He is the only person so far to post anything on demographics. The rest is spam. If you to try to argue Upper Egypt was better in some way which people are implying in this thread it makes Lower Egypt look suspect for some reason.
There are no ancient Egyptian census records. Therefore is is only rough guesswork
The chart above estimates similar amounts of people in each region. If there was more in one region than the other it wasn't a lot more, the point is irrelevant to anything. The thread topic is poorly conceived. Instead of asking which region had more people it says "Most AE lived in upper Egypt? It doesn't even say " Did Most AE live in upper Egypt?" It's like " I want more people to have lived in Upper Egypt can you confirm this? " I didn't care which place had more. I just started reading to see what was known. At this point I have read a little more and realize the answer is not known and will never be known.
Plus Oshun answered his own question in his third post and nobody even read the totals
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are 23 dots in Upper Egypt and 13 in Lower Egypt that means there were more people in Upper Egypt right? No it means people have poor reasoning skills and poor research skills. [blah blah blah…]"
NOTE: A = area of cultivable land in square kilometers, B = population density per square kilometer, C = hypothetical population in thousands.
quote:"It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was ALMOST UNDERPOPULATED in Old Kingdom times. In effect , a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was UNDERDEVELOPED and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era."
posted
The chart is broken up into 3 categories. A standing for cultivable land in square km. B standing for population density per square km. And C standing for hypothetical population in thousands.
I don't see how lioness concludes that Lower Egypt eclipsed Upper Egypt by 2,500 B.C. It seems that lioness is looking at column A for population numbers -> the A representing cultivable land instead of column C -> for hypothetical population in thousands.
Lower Egypt does not eclipse Upper Egypt in the two columns concerning population numbers -- B and C at any period in that chart. The population of Lower Egypt is considerably smaller than Upper Egypt in all the cited periods and only approaches the population of Upper Egypt relatively late - at 150 B.C, when (I assume) advances in technology would have enabled the complete drainage of the marshes in the Delta. lioness, read the small print at the bottom of the chart and dispute it if you think I'm wrong.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly dont see how Lioness is even at that conclusion considering the person who's chart she is reading said this...
Karl Butzer has estimated that two areas of greatest population denisty in dyanstic times were between Luxor{Waset} and Aswan {Elephantine} at the first cataract,and from Medium at the fayum entrance northwards to the apex of the Delta. IN between was Middle Egypt,a geogrpahic buffer zone with a lower population density. It is worth bearing in mind that the total population of egypt at the time the Giza pyramids were built is estimated to have been 1.6 million,compared with 58 million in Ad 1995.
Page 7
Mark Lehner
THe complete Pyramids
Butzer’s (1976) figures demonstrate that throughout the dynastic period the Egyptian population numbers were denser between Aswan and Qift, and between the Faiyum and the head of the Delta. The Delta and the southern wide floodplain were more sparsely populated.Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Early Hydraulic Civilization in Ancient Egypt Karl W. Butzer
Yes, I am wrong in this thread about the dynastic Egypt, period in looking at these charts and assuming these estimates from forty years ago are accurate, there were more people living in Upper Egypt
It's a win for Upper Egypt
quote:
The Delta As elaborated earlier, the major part of the Predynastic been Delta was by no means a marshy wasteland, inhabited only by scat- tered pastoral communities. Such a conclusion is compatible with the antiquity of the Delta's cult centers and the fact that the Delta was the Lower Egypt of the semimythical wars of unifica- tion in the late fourth millennium B.C. (Kaiser 1964). In fact, the ten oldest of the twenty Lower Egyptian nomes predate the 3rd Dynasty (Helck 1974, pp. 199 f.) and are significantly situated between the Delta distributaries (Kaiser 1964). Further- more, over thirty towns north of Cairo are verified archeologi- cally or epigraphically by the end of the Middle Kingdom (fig. 4).
It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of -theDelta was almost unpopulated in Old Kingdom times. In ef- fect, a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was underdeveloped and that internal coloni- zation continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era....
The available Dynastic settlement record has been recon- structed and utilized to estimate crude, relative population den- sities in the different nomes of the Nile Valley, and to suggest concentrations in the narrower floodplain segments of the far south and far north.
--oi.uchicago.edu Karl W.Butzer Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt A Study in Cultural Ecology
.
.
quote:
The oldest radiocarbon dates for "Neolithic" sites were ob- tained on the Delta margins at Merimde, and from scattered lake- shore settlements in the Faiyum Depression. Corrected for radio- carbon flux, and all subsequent B.C. assays quoted here have been so calibrated after Ralph, Michael, and Han (1973), they seem to argue for an introduction of agriculture to northern Egypt a little before 5000 B.C. In particular, the corrected, 2a range for seven concordant dates from Merimde is 4900-4500 B.C.,3 for three recently obtained dates for the Faiyum "A," 4660-4000 B.C. El-Omari, another Neolithic site near Cairo, may date ca. 3900 B.C. on the basis of the questionable solid carbon method.5
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The chart above estimates similar amounts of people in each region. If there was more in one region than the other it wasn't a lot more, the point is irrelevant to anything. The thread topic is poorly conceived. Instead of asking which region had more people it says "Most AE lived in upper Egypt? It doesn't even say " Did Most AE live in upper Egypt?" It's like " I want more people to have lived in Upper Egypt can you confirm this? "
I asked it how I asked it b/c there was a strong lean in the material I was reading to Upper Egypt holding majority of the population already. Even though I didn't post table 4, I found and posted the reference research from ESR that they got and posted it from. If you have got more updated research please share though.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes more modern Egyptians live in the delta than in the valley, but apparently you've 'forgotten' that wasn't the case in ancient times much less predynastic times as the delta was originally a vast marshland. This is precisely why the earliest settlments were at the neck of the delta (in the Fayum) and the great majority were in the valley.
It took millennia of artificial drainage, irrigation, and terra-forming to create the farmlands of the modern delta.
Just to nab the ref but where'd that pic come from?
The map pic above of prehistoric and ancient Egyptian settlements was first posted by Amun-Ra the Ultimate here.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: More Egyptians lived in lower Egypt because the Nile fans out into tributaries and there's more arable land there
SMH
quote:Karl Butzer has estimated that two areas of greatest population denisty in dyanstic times were between Luxor{Waset} and Aswan {Elephantine} at the first cataract,and from Medium at the fayum entrance northwards to the apex of the Delta. In between was Middle Egypt,a geogrpahic buffer zone with a lower population density. It is worth bearing in mind that the total population of egypt at the time the Giza pyramids were built is estimated to have been 1.6 million,compared with 58 million in Ad 1995."
—Mark Lehner, Page 7. The Complete Pyramids: Solving the Ancient Mysteries
quote:"It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was ALMOST UNDERPOPULATED in Old Kingdom times. In effect , a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was UNDERDEVELOPED and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era."
LOL Yeah, the lioness doesn't like reading sources.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
So not only were there overall more settlements in the valley than in the delta... But that these settlments were indeed larger and more heavily populated than the delta.
^ Read the numbers, twit!
unbelievable that's your interpretation this chart is showing larger numbers in the delta from 2,500 BC ( from the 5th dynasty onward) and being the same in 4000 BC The question is can you read?
LMAO Yes I can read just fine but apparently YOU can't! I think in your crazed haste, you focused only on A (the amount of arable land) as opposed to B (population density) and C (population in thousands). B and C are the crux of this thread topic so I suggest you read those numbers again. LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: "There are 23 dots in Upper Egypt and 13 in Lower Egypt that means there were more people in Upper Egypt right? No it means people have poor reasoning skills and poor research skills. [blah blah blah…]"
NOTE: A = area of cultivable land in square kilometers, B = population density per square kilometer, C = hypothetical population in thousands.
quote:"It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was ALMOST UNDERPOPULATED in Old Kingdom times. In effect , a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was UNDERDEVELOPED and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era."
I think lioness should take a break from this forum for a while. It's obvious she's in over her head (literally) and I suggest Mathilda send more mentally competitent agents in here next time. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I hope people understand that the Faiyum was actually part of Upper Egypt until the concept of "Middle Egypt" was created in the 19th Century for administrative purposes.
Not all people do, obviously.
Nope they dont know. THat is why they make dumb argument about Upper Vs Lower and dont realize what "Lower" really is.
LOL Excellent point! I myself even forgot that the Fayum was actually technically part of Upper Egypt NOT Lower Egypt although culturally they were more related to Lower Egyptians than to the rest of Upper Egypt as the Fayum itself was the gateway to the Delta.
By the way, Beyoku although you present a good map of the major sites of ancient Egypt it is still somewhat misleading as it lists the sites from northernmost to southernmost when ancient Egyptians did the opposite. Also, there were a total of 42 sepati (nomes) in ancient Egypt-- 22 in Upper Egypt and 20 in Lower Egypt.
^ Again note the numbering. The first sepat of Egypt was the southernmost Ta-Seti with its capital Abu (Elephantine) originally Nubet (Kom Ombos). The first sepat of Lower Egypt is Ineb-Hedj whose capital was Mennefer (Memphis) founded by Mena completing the unification of the two lands.
Also I think it more likely than not that the numbering of the Delta sepati may very well reflect the order of settlement in that region.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It makes one wonder why lioness shows so much resistance to this? Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
SMH ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
LMAO 
Printer-friendly view of this topic