...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » proof Tasian/Badarian is ancestral to Naqada

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: proof Tasian/Badarian is ancestral to Naqada
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What evidence suggests that the Tasian or Badarians are ancestral to the Naqada culture? I've read Egyptologists refer to it, but it doesn't seem like they're very certain the relationship. Some may argue they're an ancestral people, but what evidence implies this against the contrary?
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gatto is going to be your go to person on this subject.
I would suggest to get on academia.edu and read ALL of her publications.

Start with this though.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Gatto.pdf

Posts: 2112 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This paper is a perfect example of double speak and why the current academic discourse surrounding "Egypt" vs "Nubia" is always suspect.

So yes if you do contact Gatto, keep in mind that it is her job to maintain and teach that there was a "nubia" and "egypt" even before "KMT" even existed.

This is the problem with the whole concept of "Nubia" vs "Egypt" as it is not based on any sort of anthropological study of human remains but rather POTTERY STYLES. This is what came out of the work of Petrie and Reisner. Pottery does not define ethnicity or "race" yet this is precisely how these Egyptologists push their agenda. Nowhere else on earth is various pottery styles among local indigenous populations used to distinguish racial groups. Yet here they are continually trying separate one group of Nile Valley Africans from another group of Nile Valley Africans based on pottery..... As if that pottery defines a "racial" boundary between two groups. And all of it is based on nonsensical terms like "A-group" and "Naqada" which meant absolutely nothing to these groups along the nile 6,000 years ago. Yet they keep using the terms as if they are ACTUAL ethnic and cultural groups which they are not. It is like calling the people of the British Isles 5,000 years ago "British" when Britain did not exist and ethnic identity was not based on being "British". Same thing here.

Key point:
quote:

Because of the scanty data available for the 5th millennium BC in the First Cataract region,
as well as in southern Upper Egypt generally, not much can be said. It is notable, however,
that evidence present in this region prior to Naqada IC is always related to the Nubian
tradition, the same tradition shared by the Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle Egypt,
meaning that at that time there was not a clear distinction between two different groups,
and that probably a cultural boundary was located further north between Tasa/Badari and
Fayum/Merimde.

Showing that yes the "golden age" of early predynastic KMT was in Upper Egypt around the town of Nubt which was a center of gold trade and those people would have been indistinguishable physically from people further South in Aswan and down to the 1st or 2nd cataract. And therefore this was the "Nubian" origin of KMT if you want to use the term in its proper context meaning "gold". Meaning the growth of KMT came from the gold trading towns in Upper Egypt from which the wealth and power of the kingdom originated (and this is a common pattern across all Northern Africa as well). The gold comes from the interior and the empires grew on the trade and control of gold to the north and outside world (which later led the outside world to invade and take the gold). The archaeological record states this clearly yet they still push this nonsense of trying to make an ethnic distinction between the two groups based on the old outdated "dynastic race" construct which ultimately was the basis of the whole naming system created by Petrie for these artifacts, even though he supposedly later rejected this concept.

See his work here.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028748261

And that work still echoes in modern Egyptology even though they CLAIM not to be going by the bad old racist doctrines of the past.

The point being that any discussion of the development of KMT in the Nile Valley purposely tries to impose ethnic (and by extension racial) differences on populations in the Nile Valley which is implied by the use of the term "Nubian" which has no justification other than as a placeholder for "black Africans" even in the predynastic going back to 6000 BC. Obviously no such group called "Nubian" existed at this time yet they keep using the term in order to reinforce the idea that ethnic identity and separation already existed between "nubian" black Nile Valley populations and "others" who presumably came to settle in the Nile Valley and formed KMT, even though the facts say KMT grew out of the Nile Valley tradition which was common all along the Nile and into the Sahara and not separate from anything called "Nubian".

Other current works reinforcing this same pattern of thought:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CMDsCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=5th+millennium+nile+valley&source=bl&ots=CgJE1fEn8l&sig=UHiJ7ybMhwjEYnKRdgsNZ-lXGvU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcj-nw3 a_YAhUHC5AKHcAIDe0Q6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=5th%20millennium%20nile%20valley&f=false

A good work breaking down the methodologies and problems with identifying the roots of ancient KMT and how it developed:

quote:

There is adequate evidence that the appearance
of agriculture in Egypt is far earlier than ever
thoughts before - and certainly far earlier than in Mesopotamia.

The Agricultural Revolution happened in the
Western Desert - which was much wetter around
12,000 BC

Climatic shift (starting ca. 7000 BC) - Western
Desert starts getting much dryer.

Populations in the Western Desert move into the
Nile Valley - become what we recognize as
Predynastic cultures.

Note the Western Desert here is referring to the SOUTH West Area of Egypt around Nabta Playa. From which both so-called "Nubian" culture and the culture of KMT originated. And even more importantly you must remember that the Nile Valley below the Fist Cataract which is generally what we call Egypt today was sparsely settled prior to the 5th millenium. Most of the populations were either in the Western Deserts, aka the Sahara or in parts of the Nile farther south like the Khartoum Mesolithic. So as the Sahara dried you got populations moving North and populations moving East to form what we call today "ancient Egypt". The central locus of this being Upper Egypt and centered around gold trade and food production.
http://history.msu.edu/egyptomania/files/2010/01/understanding-the-predynastic.pdf

The problem is that this "gap" in population density preceding the development of KMT is where the Europeans have always proposed a "new race" that settled Egypt. Some will claim that they came from the Red Sea, as in the link below and others will claim they came from "Eurasians" who migrated through the Sahara.......

http://www.egyptorigins.org/earlymigrations.htm

But never will they say they came from indigenous Africans from the South or in the Sahara. Hence why they keep pushing this concept of "Nubia" as a way of segregating blacks from this migration of "other races" into the Nile Valley during the predynastic.

And of course the idea that the migrations took place FROM Africa into the Levant and Arabia across the red sea in the early time period prior to agriculture simply makes their head explode....

Yet that said there are authors who are making good progress in trying to untangle the story and David Wengrow is one example:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/calendar/articles/2015-16-news/20160125

quote:

Congratulations to David Wengrow and colleagues who have won the Antiquity Prize for 2014. The prize is awarded annually to the best contribution to the journal.

From the papers published in 2014 the panel of judges chose the article by David and colleagues entitled "Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: a prehistoric perspective on Egypt's place in Africa" as the winner.

The article, published in Vol 88, Issue 339 (March 2014), looks at the African origins of Egyptian civilisation which lie in an important cultural horizon, the ‘primary pastoral community’, which emerged in both the Egyptian and Sudanese parts of the Nile Valley in the fifth millennium BC. A re-examination of the chronology, assisted by new AMS determinations from Neolithic sites in Middle Egypt, has charted the detailed development of these new kinds of society.

As part of the award the article will be made available on open access.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/calendar/articles/2015-16-news/20160125

You can download Mr Wengrow's work here:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/cultural-convergence-in-the-neolithic-of-the-nile-valley-a-prehistoric-perspective-on-egypts-place-in-africa/198005B5D23B6 44951E17B3F0803AF74

And from that document comes this:
quote:

The overall number of dates for the Nile Valley in the fifth millennium BC remains
relatively small, so any attempt to establish internal subdivisions or trends must remain
tentative. On the basis of what is known, two observations can be made. The first is that the
characteristic features of the ‘primary pastoral community’ may appear slightly earlier in the
Sudanese than in the Egyptian part of the valley, suggesting a possible spread from south to
north during the course of the fifth millennium. The second is that the Egyptian (‘Badarian’)
extension of this cultural pattern so far produces radiocarbon dates that form an internally
consistent group, suggesting a chronological range from roughly 4400 to 3800 BC, some
two centuries longer than proposed by Hassan (1985, see also 1986) on the basis of a much
smaller number of absolute dates. This in turn implies a later start-date for the Naqada I
phase of Egyptian prehistory and an overall shortening of the ‘predynastic’ (Naqada I-II) to
a period of roughly five centuries (c. 3800–3300 BC; see Dee et al. 2013).

Considered as a larger set, the dates presented here for Middle/Upper Egypt and Sudan
occupy a broadly similar time range that extends throughout the fifth millennium BC.
They confirm the hypothesis that the Neolithic of the Nile Valley constitutes a cultural
phenomenon of impressive coherence, scale and duration. It is during this period that
burial grounds of varying size—but rarely exceeding a hundred individuals within a single
cemetery—become a widely visible feature in the archaeological record of this region. They
frequently occupy what would have been prominent topographic locations, on natural
or anthropogenic mounds or at the mouths of wadis debouching into the mid-Holocene
floodplain of the Nile. Over a period of centuries a new type of cultural landscape would
therefore have taken form along the low desert bordering the valley. Studded with ancestral
burial grounds covering richly furnished graves, its emergence represents a clear cultural break
with the Early Holocene past, and suggests the inception of new forms of territoriality along
the main north–south axis of the river (Edwards 2004: 40; Garcea & Hildebrand 2009).


Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ He asked about CULTURE. He didn't ask about RACE. Pottery, lithic tradition have everything to do with CULTURE and how cultures designated as "Nubian" diverged from or spawned cultures thought of as "Egyptian". Your critisism of her work adds no value.

You might as well argue its incorrect and you have beef with the splitting of Tasian, Naqadan and Badarian.......Nubian can just be added to the list of ONE MORE distinct regional cultures.

Man go somewhere if you have nothing to add. You had 2 days to post something..

Posts: 2112 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
This paper is a perfect example of double speak and why the current academic discourse surrounding "Egypt" vs "Nubia" is always suspect.

So yes if you do contact Gatto, keep in mind that it is her job to maintain and teach that there was a "nubia" and "egypt" even before "KMT" even existed.

This is the problem with the whole concept of "Nubia" vs "Egypt" as it is not based on any sort of anthropological study of human remains but rather POTTERY STYLES. This is what came out of the work of Petrie and Reisner. Pottery does not define ethnicity or "race" yet this is precisely how these Egyptologists push their agenda. Nowhere else on earth is various pottery styles among local indigenous populations used to distinguish racial groups. Yet here they are continually trying separate one group of Nile Valley Africans from another group of Nile Valley Africans based on pottery..... As if that pottery defines a "racial" boundary between two groups. And all of it is based on nonsensical terms like "A-group" and "Naqada" which meant absolutely nothing to these groups along the nile 6,000 years ago. Yet they keep using the terms as if they are ACTUAL ethnic and cultural groups which they are not. It is like calling the people of the British Isles 5,000 years ago "British" when Britain did not exist and ethnic identity was not based on being "British". Same thing here.

Key point:
quote:

Because of the scanty data available for the 5th millennium BC in the First Cataract region,
as well as in southern Upper Egypt generally, not much can be said. It is notable, however,
that evidence present in this region prior to Naqada IC is always related to the Nubian
tradition, the same tradition shared by the Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle Egypt,
meaning that at that time there was not a clear distinction between two different groups,
and that probably a cultural boundary was located further north between Tasa/Badari and
Fayum/Merimde.

Showing that yes the "golden age" of early predynastic KMT was in Upper Egypt around the town of Nubt which was a center of gold trade and those people would have been indistinguishable physically from people further South in Aswan and down to the 1st or 2nd cataract. And therefore this was the "Nubian" origin of KMT if you want to use the term in its proper context meaning "gold". Meaning the growth of KMT came from the gold trading towns in Upper Egypt from which the wealth and power of the kingdom originated (and this is a common pattern across all Northern Africa as well). The gold comes from the interior and the empires grew on the trade and control of gold to the north and outside world (which later led the outside world to invade and take the gold). The archaeological record states this clearly yet they still push this nonsense of trying to make an ethnic distinction between the two groups based on the old outdated "dynastic race" construct which ultimately was the basis of the whole naming system created by Petrie for these artifacts, even though he supposedly later rejected this concept.

See his work here.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028748261

And that work still echoes in modern Egyptology even though they CLAIM not to be going by the bad old racist doctrines of the past.

The point being that any discussion of the development of KMT in the Nile Valley purposely tries to impose ethnic (and by extension racial) differences on populations in the Nile Valley which is implied by the use of the term "Nubian" which has no justification other than as a placeholder for "black Africans" even in the predynastic going back to 6000 BC. Obviously no such group called "Nubian" existed at this time yet they keep using the term in order to reinforce the idea that ethnic identity and separation already existed between "nubian" black Nile Valley populations and "others" who presumably came to settle in the Nile Valley and formed KMT, even though the facts say KMT grew out of the Nile Valley tradition which was common all along the Nile and into the Sahara and not separate from anything called "Nubian".

Other current works reinforcing this same pattern of thought:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CMDsCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=5th+millennium+nile+valley&source=bl&ots=CgJE1fEn8l&sig=UHiJ7ybMhwjEYnKRdgsNZ-lXGvU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcj-nw3 a_YAhUHC5AKHcAIDe0Q6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=5th%20millennium%20nile%20valley&f=false

A good work breaking down the methodologies and problems with identifying the roots of ancient KMT and how it developed:

quote:

There is adequate evidence that the appearance
of agriculture in Egypt is far earlier than ever
thoughts before - and certainly far earlier than in Mesopotamia.

The Agricultural Revolution happened in the
Western Desert - which was much wetter around
12,000 BC

Climatic shift (starting ca. 7000 BC) - Western
Desert starts getting much dryer.

Populations in the Western Desert move into the
Nile Valley - become what we recognize as
Predynastic cultures.

Note the Western Desert here is referring to the SOUTH West Area of Egypt around Nabta Playa. From which both so-called "Nubian" culture and the culture of KMT originated. And even more importantly you must remember that the Nile Valley below the Fist Cataract which is generally what we call Egypt today was sparsely settled prior to the 5th millenium. Most of the populations were either in the Western Deserts, aka the Sahara or in parts of the Nile farther south like the Khartoum Mesolithic. So as the Sahara dried you got populations moving North and populations moving East to form what we call today "ancient Egypt". The central locus of this being Upper Egypt and centered around gold trade and food production.
http://history.msu.edu/egyptomania/files/2010/01/understanding-the-predynastic.pdf

The problem is that this "gap" in population density preceding the development of KMT is where the Europeans have always proposed a "new race" that settled Egypt. Some will claim that they came from the Red Sea, as in the link below and others will claim they came from "Eurasians" who migrated through the Sahara.......

http://www.egyptorigins.org/earlymigrations.htm

But never will they say they came from indigenous Africans from the South or in the Sahara. Hence why they keep pushing this concept of "Nubia" as a way of segregating blacks from this migration of "other races" into the Nile Valley during the predynastic.

And of course the idea that the migrations took place FROM Africa into the Levant and Arabia across the red sea in the early time period prior to agriculture simply makes their head explode....

Yet that said there are authors who are making good progress in trying to untangle the story and David Wengrow is one example:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/calendar/articles/2015-16-news/20160125

quote:

Congratulations to David Wengrow and colleagues who have won the Antiquity Prize for 2014. The prize is awarded annually to the best contribution to the journal.

From the papers published in 2014 the panel of judges chose the article by David and colleagues entitled "Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: a prehistoric perspective on Egypt's place in Africa" as the winner.

The article, published in Vol 88, Issue 339 (March 2014), looks at the African origins of Egyptian civilisation which lie in an important cultural horizon, the ‘primary pastoral community’, which emerged in both the Egyptian and Sudanese parts of the Nile Valley in the fifth millennium BC. A re-examination of the chronology, assisted by new AMS determinations from Neolithic sites in Middle Egypt, has charted the detailed development of these new kinds of society.

As part of the award the article will be made available on open access.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/calendar/articles/2015-16-news/20160125

You can download Mr Wengrow's work here:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/cultural-convergence-in-the-neolithic-of-the-nile-valley-a-prehistoric-perspective-on-egypts-place-in-africa/198005B5D23B6 44951E17B3F0803AF74

And from that document comes this:
quote:

The overall number of dates for the Nile Valley in the fifth millennium BC remains
relatively small, so any attempt to establish internal subdivisions or trends must remain
tentative. On the basis of what is known, two observations can be made. The first is that the
characteristic features of the ‘primary pastoral community’ may appear slightly earlier in the
Sudanese than in the Egyptian part of the valley, suggesting a possible spread from south to
north during the course of the fifth millennium. The second is that the Egyptian (‘Badarian’)
extension of this cultural pattern so far produces radiocarbon dates that form an internally
consistent group, suggesting a chronological range from roughly 4400 to 3800 BC, some
two centuries longer than proposed by Hassan (1985, see also 1986) on the basis of a much
smaller number of absolute dates. This in turn implies a later start-date for the Naqada I
phase of Egyptian prehistory and an overall shortening of the ‘predynastic’ (Naqada I-II) to
a period of roughly five centuries (c. 3800–3300 BC; see Dee et al. 2013).

Considered as a larger set, the dates presented here for Middle/Upper Egypt and Sudan
occupy a broadly similar time range that extends throughout the fifth millennium BC.
They confirm the hypothesis that the Neolithic of the Nile Valley constitutes a cultural
phenomenon of impressive coherence, scale and duration. It is during this period that
burial grounds of varying size—but rarely exceeding a hundred individuals within a single
cemetery—become a widely visible feature in the archaeological record of this region. They
frequently occupy what would have been prominent topographic locations, on natural
or anthropogenic mounds or at the mouths of wadis debouching into the mid-Holocene
floodplain of the Nile. Over a period of centuries a new type of cultural landscape would
therefore have taken form along the low desert bordering the valley. Studded with ancestral
burial grounds covering richly furnished graves, its emergence represents a clear cultural break
with the Early Holocene past, and suggests the inception of new forms of territoriality along
the main north–south axis of the river (Edwards 2004: 40; Garcea & Hildebrand 2009).


Nice Review

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 12376 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ He asked about CULTURE. He didn't ask about RACE. Pottery, lithic tradition have everything to do with CULTURE and how cultures designated as "Nubian" diverged from or spawned cultures thought of as "Egyptian". Your critisism of her work adds no value.

You might as well argue its incorrect and you have beef with the splitting of Tasian, Naqadan and Badarian.......Nubian can just be added to the list of ONE MORE distinct regional cultures.

Man go somewhere if you have nothing to add. You had 2 days to post something..

Like I posted the whole concept of Nubia is a racial concept. I posted the work of Petrie that clearly states this. And like I said, no matter how much modern academia claims to say they no longer support this, the works and teaching still promote it. And then I also posted the current up to date scholarship that shows the actual CULTURAL relationships along the Nile Valley and those works ALSO call out this historical issue of race in discussing Nile Valley culture. You can't get around it. But things are changing slowly.

Bottom line, Egyptology as a body of knowledge was created around the concept of a racial distinction between Egypt and "Nubia". And therefore that baggage is part of any discussion of culture in this region.

I didn't create this problem and have to call it out instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -


 -

 -
Illustration diagramming Book of Gates


^^ This Book of Gates scene appears in several 19th and 20th dynasty tombs where people are grouped into different looking types

The top row has four RMT ( people of KMT)

they are followed by four Asiatics (two on top row continuing down to two on the bottom row)

Then four Nehesy on the bottom row

Followed by four Libyans


 -
One Asiatic followed by three of the four Nehesy


 -


You see in these tombs the Egyptians depicting four groups of mankind


And in these scenes they show themselves as different in color from the Nehesy.

One could argue that that is color not race
However what we see here are scenes where the Egyptians have grouped people into four types and the have depicted those types as phenotypically different

Posts: 32510 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do you make of modern Egyptians and Sudanese that call themselves "Nubian?" Wengrow discusses the primary pastoral community but what specifically links the primary pastoral community to Naqada culture? Someone attempting to attribute Upper Egypt to the Near East could suggest while the primary pastoral community lived in Egypt, they were mostly irrelevant to Naqada culture.

And while they do mention the Badarians...wouldn't the shortening of the predynastic period to about 5 centuries require us to believe that the Badarians were ancestral to the Naqada Egyptians? What data is there that the Badarians were direct ancestors to Naqada Egyptians then? I've read stuff that says Badarian and Naqada materials have been found concurrently. So while there's research saying they are related cultures... how do we know the Badarians were the same, but ancestral?

Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
What do you make of modern Egyptians and Sudanese that call themselves "Nubian?"

It is a modern term that has been taken on since Roman times. I posted a more detailed history of the term in another thread. The only issue is one must remember that 6,000 years ago the term "Nubian" did not exist as it does today just like there was no "Britain" or "France" or even "Europe" or an "Arab".

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

Wengrow discusses the primary pastoral community but what specifically links the primary pastoral community to Naqada culture? Someone attempting to attribute Upper Egypt to the Near East could suggest while the primary pastoral community lived in Egypt, they were mostly irrelevant to Naqada culture.

And while they do mention the Badarians...wouldn't the shortening of the predynastic period to about 5 centuries require us to believe that the Badarians were ancestral to the Naqada Egyptians? What data is there that the Badarians were direct ancestors to Naqada Egyptians then? I've read stuff that says Badarian and Naqada materials have been found concurrently. So while there's research saying they are related cultures... how do we know the Badarians were the same, but ancestral?

It is self explanatory isn't it? Meaning there was a local tradition of pastoralism in Africa and the Nile that possibly predated that from outside of Africa. Therefore later groups like those of KMT would have derived pastoralism from this tradition instead of outside Africa. The general gist is that there was a collection of common cultural traits among various related groups of people along the Nile that can be identified both in terms of sustenance strategy but also physical artifacts. And Mr Wengrow is making the point that the dynastic culture of KMT arose out of that local tradition which by extension means the Naqada culture is an evolution from earlier cultures like the Badarian and so forth vs an intrusion of a NEW culture from outside the Nile Valley. Think of it more as local evolution among various cultural traditions already in place vs wholesale replacement by outside traditions. And by extension that implies the populations involved were locals and we are talking about a gradual evolution of local technologies and social organization. Badarian, Tasian are not "ethnic groups" they are mainly references to cultural artifacts. We don't know what these people called themselves and how they were organized in the predynastic. These are just labels archaeologists use to reference particular sets of artifacts and remains found in certain places at certain times with common cultural motifs and markers.
Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
What do you make of modern Egyptians and Sudanese that call themselves "Nubian?"

It is a modern term that has been taken on since Roman times. I posted a more detailed history of the term in another thread. The only issue is one must remember that 6,000 years ago the term "Nubian" did not exist as it does today just like there was no "Britain" or "France" or even "Europe" or an "Arab".

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

Wengrow discusses the primary pastoral community but what specifically links the primary pastoral community to Naqada culture? Someone attempting to attribute Upper Egypt to the Near East could suggest while the primary pastoral community lived in Egypt, they were mostly irrelevant to Naqada culture.

And while they do mention the Badarians...wouldn't the shortening of the predynastic period to about 5 centuries require us to believe that the Badarians were ancestral to the Naqada Egyptians? What data is there that the Badarians were direct ancestors to Naqada Egyptians then? I've read stuff that says Badarian and Naqada materials have been found concurrently. So while there's research saying they are related cultures... how do we know the Badarians were the same, but ancestral?

It is self explanatory isn't it? Meaning there was a local tradition of pastoralism in Africa and the Nile that possibly predated that from outside of Africa. Therefore later groups like those of KMT would have derived pastoralism from this tradition instead of outside Africa. The general gist is that there was a collection of common cultural traits among various related groups of people along the Nile that can be identified both in terms of sustenance strategy but also physical artifacts. And Mr Wengrow is making the point that the dynastic culture of KMT arose out of that local tradition which by extension means the Naqada culture is an evolution from earlier cultures like the Badarian and so forth vs an intrusion of a NEW culture from outside the Nile Valley. Think of it more as local evolution among various cultural traditions already in place vs wholesale replacement by outside traditions. And by extension that implies the populations involved were locals and we are talking about a gradual evolution of local technologies and social organization. Badarian, Tasian are not "ethnic groups" they are mainly references to cultural artifacts. We don't know what these people called themselves and how they were organized in the predynastic. These are just labels archaeologists use to reference particular sets of artifacts and remains found in certain places at certain times with common cultural motifs and markers.

.

 -


Correct. Nabta is the oldest site in the world for cattle domestication
.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 12376 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]It is self explanatory isn't it? Meaning there was a local tradition of pastoralism in Africa and the Nile that possibly predated that from outside of Africa. Therefore later groups like those of KMT would have derived pastoralism from this tradition instead of outside Africa. The general gist is that there was a collection of common cultural traits among various related groups of people along the Nile that can be identified both in terms of sustenance strategy but also physical artifacts. And Mr Wengrow is making the point that the dynastic culture of KMT arose out of that local tradition which by extension means the Naqada culture is an evolution from earlier cultures like the Badarian and so forth vs an intrusion of a NEW culture from outside the Nile Valley.

There is a potential problem in this type of responding: That is to say being selective in when to read data rigorously, and when scholars are simply accepted at their word without much review of any data because they say what people want to hear. The more I'm reading, the more I see that scholars discuss data or at least they do relative to amateurs. Amateurs discuss scholars or recite what they read in a history book that citied no primary sources whatsoever. They either never engage the data at all or are only going to reluctantly take the importance of independent ("peer review") of data seriously when a scholar's views fail to align with their own. We obviously don't have the resources or time of heavyweights, so I don't expect we'll have as robust a set of primary resources to work with. But this isn't even trying where an explanation with data is essential. I mean you truly cannot keep talking about the cultural origins of Egypt being connected to Sudan but have no data you can cite for something like a primary pastoral community when you bring it up. It's not a peripheral concern, it cuts at the core of what many people here have been arguing the whole time. You were just saying this or that about Gatto, but Wengrow gets a pass because he says what you wanna hear? That's not right. What data do we have on Naqada culture showing they were an evolution of earlier cultures from Badarian or the primary pastoral community?


quote:
Think of it more as local evolution among various cultural traditions already in place vs wholesale replacement by outside traditions. And by extension that implies the populations involved were locals and we are talking about a gradual evolution of local technologies and social organization. Badarian, Tasian are not "ethnic groups" they are mainly references to cultural artifacts. We don't know what these people called themselves and how they were organized in the predynastic. These are just labels archaeologists use to reference particular sets of artifacts and remains found in certain places at certain times with common cultural motifs and markers.

Fine lets say the Naqada culture wasn't born from the Badarian, can you at least provide data that specifically ties it to the primary pastoral community.
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]It is self explanatory isn't it? Meaning there was a local tradition of pastoralism in Africa and the Nile that possibly predated that from outside of Africa. Therefore later groups like those of KMT would have derived pastoralism from this tradition instead of outside Africa. The general gist is that there was a collection of common cultural traits among various related groups of people along the Nile that can be identified both in terms of sustenance strategy but also physical artifacts. And Mr Wengrow is making the point that the dynastic culture of KMT arose out of that local tradition which by extension means the Naqada culture is an evolution from earlier cultures like the Badarian and so forth vs an intrusion of a NEW culture from outside the Nile Valley.

There is a potential problem in this type of responding: That is to say being selective in when to read data rigorously, and when scholars are simply accepted at their word without much review of any data because they say what people want to hear. The more I'm reading, the more I see that scholars discuss data or at least they do relative to amateurs. Amateurs discuss scholars or recite what they read in a history book that citied no primary sources whatsoever. They either never engage the data at all or are only going to reluctantly take the importance of independent ("peer review") of data seriously when a scholar's views fail to align with their own. We obviously don't have the resources or time of heavyweights, so I don't expect we'll have as robust a set of primary resources to work with. But this isn't even trying where an explanation with data is essential. I mean you truly cannot keep talking about the cultural origins of Egypt being connected to Sudan but have no data you can cite for something like a primary pastoral community when you bring it up. It's not a peripheral concern, it cuts at the core of what many people here have been arguing the whole time. You were just saying this or that about Gatto, but Wengrow gets a pass because he says what you wanna hear? That's not right. What data do we have on Naqada culture showing they were an evolution of earlier cultures from Badarian or the primary pastoral community?


quote:
Think of it more as local evolution among various cultural traditions already in place vs wholesale replacement by outside traditions. And by extension that implies the populations involved were locals and we are talking about a gradual evolution of local technologies and social organization. Badarian, Tasian are not "ethnic groups" they are mainly references to cultural artifacts. We don't know what these people called themselves and how they were organized in the predynastic. These are just labels archaeologists use to reference particular sets of artifacts and remains found in certain places at certain times with common cultural motifs and markers.

Fine lets say the Naqada culture wasn't born from the Badarian, can you at least provide data that specifically ties it to the primary pastoral community.

Oshun, stop asking folks to think for you and then try and critique folks you are asking for help.

You can damn well do your own research and read these papers for yourself and make your own opinions.

Nobody has time for this back and forth nonsense.

You asked a question and I answered it. I also provided multiple scholarly sources for various opinions on the issue.

So look at that and whatever else you can find on your own and make up your own mind. But don't sit here and pretend to lecture me when I am apparently doing more work on researching something for YOU than you are. And if you have already made up your mind on the issue why even ask the question? It sounds odd.

In general like I said, the issue is of ancient KMT being a local evolution of culture from people and populations within the Nile Valley as opposed to being a transplant from without. This is the normal behavior in all ancient cultures and societies. The Indus Valley, Sumeria, the Nile Valley and others are all examples of local populations that evolved into advanced cultures and developed civilization. That is how evolution works. One stage or era leads to the next until over time things become advanced enough to be called a "civilization". So I am not understanding how you are misreading what is being said. And the terms "Badarian", "Tasian" and "Naqada" don't matter. They are arbitrary labels made up by European archaeologists. The underlying question is whether these were all native Nile Valley cultural traditions indigenous to the Nile Valley or not. If they are all indigenous traditions then of course there will be a relationship between them as they all occur within the same geographic area.

What they are saying about the pastoral tradition and Naqada is the obvious that Africa has been evolving towards civilization since humans originated in Africa. Therefore the human mind and human society has been gradually evolving towards more complex forms of social organization, culture and survival strategies for many thousands of years. So to look at the Nile Valley as not having any advanced cultural development in the time leading up to the birth of Egypt is actually the exception not the rule when it comes to how civilization developed. But that is simply a very high level picture of what is going on here. The debate is whether Africans actually had brains and were smart enough to evolve anything beyond the most basic mundane form of culture and therefore not connected to anything remotely tied to civilization in any form. And of course these kinds of extreme views come only from racists. I don't consider such views as being objective, scholarly and worth the time of day.

Bottom line this evolution in culture came from ancient populations outside of Europe. And therefore any European trying to put a European stamp on something from outside Europe, including agriculture and civilization is simply pursuing an agenda that has no basis in reality. And that includes agriculture and the pastoral tradition which had important inputs and developments both within Africa and from African populations in parts of the Levant. And that is my personal opinion and some scholars seem to also have this view.

Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Oshun, stop asking folks to think for you and then try and critique folks you are asking for help.

You can damn well do your own research and read these papers for yourself and make your own opinions.

This isn't asking anyone to think for me, this is thinking for myself to know I need data and cannot selectively choose when to decide when to take a scholar at their word. You are the one picking and choosing when a scholar's opinion is enough otherwise you'd have at least one IOTA of data.

quote:

Nobody has time for this back and forth nonsense.

Nobody has time to know ENOUGH about Naqada culture to have an iota of DATA that connects it the Sudanese pastoral community Wengrow was talking about? This is like I said not a peripheral point, to which your comment would be fairly easy for me to ignore. it stabs at the very heart of the whole theory that Upper Egypt was Sudanese in origin and not Levanite (or somewhere else). How do you think it is satisfactory that you do not have a smidgen of data to back up the origins of the culture? Don't you want to understand more?

quote:

You asked a question and I answered it. I also provided multiple scholarly sources for various opinions on the issue.

You just said to be highly skeptical of Beyoku's source (Gatto) and listed all these reasons not to take her at her word. Then you get MAD when someone asks you for data on your source. If you're telling us to review DATA and not conjecture from other people's sources, I don't know how in the bloody hell you think you're "answering" anything. You came in, dismantled the conjectural authority of someone else's source by insisting a certain standard of review but insist you're too good for the standards you insist we have for other people's contributions here. Regardless of what work you think others are putting in, it doesn't mean that by the standards YOU came in here to insist, you're not putting in much work than I am. I could go grab a Vogel quote and say Egypt was a Sudanese transplant if I wanted. Obviously I want to know HOW Badarian, the Pastoral Community or whatever a scholar says connects Naqada to Sudan does so.

quote:
So look at that and whatever else you can find on your own and make up your own mind. But don't sit here and pretend to lecture me when I am apparently doing more work on researching something for YOU than you are.

Okay back that up for a second. You're going to try to put this on me when you were the one on Beyoku's jock complaining about his source but then cannot take the heat when it's yours? How is that fair? You are telling ME to behave a certain way to the sources others cite (and I'm reviewing them too) but then you have this attitude when people decide if that approach you insist is applied, it should be applied to all sources and not just Beyoku's source when she offends you with her talk of Nubians.


quote:
And if you have already made up your mind on the issue why even ask the question? It sounds odd.

It's not about "making my mind" it's about not being selective about when to consider what data backs a claim before adopting an opinion.


quote:
In general like I said, the issue is of ancient KMT being a local evolution of culture from people and populations within the Nile Valley as opposed to being a transplant from without. This is the normal behavior in all ancient cultures and societies.

And that would be a position that can be supported by data (much like any position that could be taken). What data places the origins of the Naqada culture to the Sudanese pastoral community?

quote:
And the terms "Badarian", "Tasian" and "Naqada" don't matter. They are arbitrary labels made up by European archaeologists.

Oh here we go. European academia good on their word when it's something you like to hear, but arbitrary or liars when they say something that puts a monkey wrench into whatever you're talking about. Naqada is a period of material culture that precedes a unified Egyptian political state. It gives us a period of earliest evidence for writing, royal iconography, etc. It allows us to understand HOW a geographical region can undergo significant changes spanning centuries or millennia. It's why many of you can still be here when the phenotype of an Egyptian copt looks nothing like the "black Egyptians" of "arbitrary" eras of the past. For all that "arbitrary" talk, it wasn't much of a concern to make distinctions of the sort when people counter with talk of the Intermediate period DNA that's coalescence spanned into pre history. Oh then understanding distinctions between Maadi, Buto and Naqada or distinctions between predynastic, intermediate period, old kingdom and non dynastic Egypt are important.


quote:

The underlying question is whether these were all native Nile Valley cultural traditions indigenous to the Nile Valley or not. If they are all indigenous traditions then of course there will be a relationship between them as they all occur within the same geographic area.

"Indigenous" is ironically an arbitrary term. Lower Egyptians were indigenous to Egypt but even in predynastic times people living in the Delta could show great cultural affinity to the Levant. People living in northern Egypt by the time the dynastic period started would probably have considered themselves indigenous Africans, even if they culturally and biologically had great affinity to the Near East.


quote:
What they are saying about the pastoral tradition and Naqada is the obvious that Africa has been evolving towards civilization since humans originated in Africa. Therefore the human mind and human society has been gradually evolving towards more complex forms of social organization, culture and survival strategies for many thousands of years. So to look at the Nile Valley as not having any advanced cultural development in the time leading up to the birth of Egypt is actually the exception not the rule when it comes to how civilization developed. But that is simply a very high level picture of what is going on here. The debate is whether Africans actually had brains and were smart enough to evolve anything beyond the most basic mundane form of culture and therefore not connected to anything remotely tied to civilization in any form. And of course these kinds of extreme views come only from racists. I don't consider such views as being objective, scholarly and worth the time of day.

And again they would be proven extreme views through use of data that you should readily have for anybody you discuss this with. This is a critical point to the claim Egypt's origins are in Africa. This isn't a question that is of marginal importance. WHAT culturally binds the Naqada culture to the pastoral community. It is of high importance that you have more than selective conjecture of the same academia that will make distinctions between Egypt and Nubia.
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Doug. You have white people on the mind man. The general questions asked by Oshun were NOT if "ancient KMT being a local evolution of culture from people and populations within the Nile Valley as opposed to being a transplant from without".

That is NOT what he asked about. That basic "waz teh black" shit may be what is important TO YOU.

Now Oshun has specifically be asking questions about Nile Valley cultures, when they separated from each other. The deferences between them and which are ancestral to which.

Nobody said anything about white people. "Badarian", "Tasian" and "Naqadan" are not arbitrary terms made up by white people. Furthermore how you gonna be salty when differentiating "Nubian" cultures from "Egyptian" Cultures. Is it fine if we simply call them "Sudanese" ? What about "Saharo-Sahelian"?

Why not try and answer some damn questions instead of going on and on about the white people that raped you a long time ago.

Posts: 2112 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Oshun, stop asking folks to think for you and then try and critique folks you are asking for help.

You can damn well do your own research and read these papers for yourself and make your own opinions.

This isn't asking anyone to think for me, this is thinking for myself to know I need data and cannot selectively choose when to decide when to take a scholar at their word. You are the one picking and choosing when a scholar's opinion is enough otherwise you'd have at least one IOTA of data.

quote:

Nobody has time for this back and forth nonsense.

Nobody has time to know ENOUGH about Naqada culture to have an iota of DATA that connects it the Sudanese pastoral community Wengrow was talking about? This is like I said not a peripheral point, to which your comment would be fairly easy for me to ignore. it stabs at the very heart of the whole theory that Upper Egypt was Sudanese in origin and not Levanite (or somewhere else). How do you think it is satisfactory that you do not have a smidgen of data to back up the origins of the culture? Don't you want to understand more?

quote:

You asked a question and I answered it. I also provided multiple scholarly sources for various opinions on the issue.

You just said to be highly skeptical of Beyoku's source (Gatto) and listed all these reasons not to take her at her word. Then you get MAD when someone asks you for data on your source. If you're telling us to review DATA and not conjecture from other people's sources, I don't know how in the bloody hell you think you're "answering" anything. You came in, dismantled the conjectural authority of someone else's source by insisting a certain standard of review but insist you're too good for the standards you insist we have for other people's contributions here. Regardless of what work you think others are putting in, it doesn't mean that by the standards YOU came in here to insist, you're not putting in much work than I am. I could go grab a Vogel quote and say Egypt was a Sudanese transplant if I wanted. Obviously I want to know HOW Badarian, the Pastoral Community or whatever a scholar says connects Naqada to Sudan does so.

quote:
So look at that and whatever else you can find on your own and make up your own mind. But don't sit here and pretend to lecture me when I am apparently doing more work on researching something for YOU than you are.

Okay back that up for a second. You're going to try to put this on me when you were the one on Beyoku's jock complaining about his source but then cannot take the heat when it's yours? How is that fair? You are telling ME to behave a certain way to the sources others cite (and I'm reviewing them too) but then you have this attitude when people decide if that approach you insist is applied, it should be applied to all sources and not just Beyoku's source when she offends you with her talk of Nubians.

And not once have you said anything about what you thought about the references provided. You are more worried about what I think than actually saying what you think. Like I said, don't ask me to do research and thinking for you.

Meaning go read and look up these papers yourself and stop asking questions on forums when the data is available for anybody to go research. I went and found the references to Gatto in another thread that you started. So quit the nonsense already and go form your own opinions pretending to lecture me on something you don't even show the interest in looking up yourself.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
And if you have already made up your mind on the issue why even ask the question? It sounds odd.

It's not about "making my mind" it's about not being selective about when to consider what data backs a claim before adopting an opinion.


quote:
In general like I said, the issue is of ancient KMT being a local evolution of culture from people and populations within the Nile Valley as opposed to being a transplant from without. This is the normal behavior in all ancient cultures and societies.

And that would be a position that can be supported by data (much like any position that could be taken). What data places the origins of the Naqada culture to the Sudanese pastoral community?

quote:
And the terms "Badarian", "Tasian" and "Naqada" don't matter. They are arbitrary labels made up by European archaeologists.

Oh here we go. European academia good on their word when it's something you like to hear, but arbitrary or liars when they say something that puts a monkey wrench into whatever you're talking about. Naqada is a period of material culture that precedes a unified Egyptian political state. It gives us a period of earliest evidence for writing, royal iconography, etc. It allows us to understand HOW a geographical region can undergo significant changes spanning centuries or millennia. It's why many of you can still be here when the phenotype of an Egyptian copt looks nothing like the "black Egyptians" of "arbitrary" eras of the past. For all that "arbitrary" talk, it wasn't much of a concern to make distinctions of the sort when people counter with talk of the Intermediate period DNA that's coalescence spanned into pre history. Oh then understanding distinctions between Maadi, Buto and Naqada or distinctions between predynastic, intermediate period, old kingdom and non dynastic Egypt are important.

Are you publishing any papers on Egypt? And who on earth do you expect to be doing the research on ancient Egypt other than Europeans? Again, don't sit here and pretend to lecture me on what European scholars think when you know full well that those are the only people doing the research in the first place. And if there are African scholars doing it then why don't YOU already know who they are? Again, the point is why are you acting like you cant find these things yourself instead of asking a question then then pontificating about how somebody tries to help YOU out? It is pathetic considering I did nothing more than a few minutes of google searches yet you sit here and want to act like you can DEMAND how somebody does something to help you? Why don't you go find this stuff yourself? This back and forth is irrelevant because none of us are doing the actual research and publishing the papers. So at the end of the day either you agree with the positions of certain scholars or you don't but don't sit here and bull jive me about the fact you haven't done much of the leg work your self to find out what is actually going on in the field. I gave you what you asked for and all that is needed is a simple thanks.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

The underlying question is whether these were all native Nile Valley cultural traditions indigenous to the Nile Valley or not. If they are all indigenous traditions then of course there will be a relationship between them as they all occur within the same geographic area.

"Indigenous" is ironically an arbitrary term. Lower Egyptians were indigenous to Egypt but even in predynastic times people living in the Delta could show great cultural affinity to the Levant. People living in northern Egypt by the time the dynastic period started would probably have considered themselves indigenous Africans, even if they culturally and biologically had great affinity to the Near East.


quote:
What they are saying about the pastoral tradition and Naqada is the obvious that Africa has been evolving towards civilization since humans originated in Africa. Therefore the human mind and human society has been gradually evolving towards more complex forms of social organization, culture and survival strategies for many thousands of years. So to look at the Nile Valley as not having any advanced cultural development in the time leading up to the birth of Egypt is actually the exception not the rule when it comes to how civilization developed. But that is simply a very high level picture of what is going on here. The debate is whether Africans actually had brains and were smart enough to evolve anything beyond the most basic mundane form of culture and therefore not connected to anything remotely tied to civilization in any form. And of course these kinds of extreme views come only from racists. I don't consider such views as being objective, scholarly and worth the time of day.

And again they would be proven extreme views through use of data that you should readily have for anybody you discuss this with. This is a critical point to the claim Egypt's origins are in Africa. This isn't a question that is of marginal importance. WHAT culturally binds the Naqada culture to the pastoral community. It is of high importance that you have more than selective conjecture of the same academia that will make distinctions between Egypt and Nubia.

Why don't you read the paper and make your own conclusion then? I don't see from your response that you even read the papers in question. So why are you asking me about something I didn't write in the first place? The papers have been provided. Now all you have to do is go read them and do your own further research on those questions. I am not required to do your work for you if you feel this is something you are interested in. And I am not obligated to sugar coat, reformulate, regurgitate and moderate my opinions or the opinions and views of others to suit your lack of following up and doing your own research and forming your own opinions. All you are doing now is whining as if somebody didn't give you what you are looking for on a silver platter and life doesn't work like that. Nobody is working to get your approval on historical research on AE. Do your own and find your own facts and evidence to support what you think is right but to do that you actually have to research what is out there.

And here is the PDF which should answer most of your questions:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/198005B5D23B644951E17B3F0803AF74/S0003598X00050249a.pdf/cultural_convergence_in_the_neolithic_of_the_nile_va lley_a_prehistoric_perspective_on_egypts_place_in_africa.pdf

Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Doug. You have white people on the mind man. The general questions asked by Oshun were NOT if "ancient KMT being a local evolution of culture from people and populations within the Nile Valley as opposed to being a transplant from without".

That is NOT what he asked about. That basic "waz teh black" shit may be what is important TO YOU.

Now Oshun has specifically be asking questions about Nile Valley cultures, when they separated from each other. The deferences between them and which are ancestral to which.

Nobody said anything about white people. "Badarian", "Tasian" and "Naqadan" are not arbitrary terms made up by white people. Furthermore how you gonna be salty when differentiating "Nubian" cultures from "Egyptian" Cultures. Is it fine if we simply call them "Sudanese" ? What about "Saharo-Sahelian"?

Why not try and answer some damn questions instead of going on and on about the white people that raped you a long time ago.

So according to you historic racism does not still affect the study of Egypt.

Why don't you just say that? Otherwise don't come at me about making up racism in the world.

OK? Racism exists just like other forms of evil exists.

If you don't want to face it then fine but don't come at me with B.S.

And why are you so worried about defending white people on their racism?

But you noticed I provided the data and instead of addressing that you are more worried about defending white folks honor.

I didn't realize that offended you and made you feel a certain way.

Don't sit here and pontificate to me like your job in life is to defend white society for their racism.

Save me that nonsense and just don't reply to me if that is the case.

Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
And not once have you said anything about what you thought about the references provided. You are more worried about what I think than actually saying what you think. Like I said, don't ask me to do research and thinking for you.

I'm worried you have no data. If you have no data what you think starts to lose the impact it could have had. Let me put this to you in another way: You complain endlessly about Eurocentrism when the subject is Nubia or some other issue Europeans talk about that you don't agree with. But when they say something you like, you rely on European authority to sell your point and not any data. The burden of proof is not on someone arguing the negative position. You are affirming the existence of a pastoral position that connects Egypt and Sudan. YOU need to have the data to support that. Strictly relying on the opinions of European scholars you will eventually discount as authorities when they don't agree with you doesn't count. You have been discussing the connection between people living in Egypt and Sudan endlessly to dismantle the idea of a "Nubia" existing in ancient times... Yet you have no data to suggest this is true.


quote:

Meaning go read and look up these papers yourself and stop asking questions on forums when the data is available for anybody to go research. I went and found the references to Gatto in another thread that you started. So quit the nonsense already and go form your own opinions pretending to lecture me on something you don't even show the interest in looking up yourself.

YOU are the one suggesting the pastoral community existed and was a foundation for Egypt. It's not my point. You are in the rhetorical position of affirming. Stop relying on logical fallacies and shifting burdens of proof and just say you don't have any data yet! I am looking for DATA on the subject to form an opinion. In the absence of data it is logical to take the negative position. If you have no data, you have no foundation to selectively agree with European scholars who you'll then claim to be skeptical sources whenever someone says Nubian again.


quote:
Are you publishing any papers on Egypt? And who on earth do you expect to be doing the research on ancient Egypt other than Europeans? Again, don't sit here and pretend to lecture me on what European scholars think when you know full well that those are the only people doing the research in the first place.

That's besides the point, regardless of whose doing research, you can have some idea of available data.


quote:

And if there are African scholars doing it then why don't YOU already know who they are? Again, the point is why are you acting like you cant find these things yourself instead of asking a question then then pontificating about how somebody tries to help YOU out?

So you thought demanding skepticism and a call to be mindful of data for Beyoku's source was "helping" but so long as you get a separate standard for your contributions? But when you're held to the standards you talk about, that's a lack of gratitude. I never said I found nothing, I inquired here because I wanted to know if people who I expect to hold more experience with the subject of Egypt and Sudan to have data I can review to form an opinion. I will continue to look for data on this matter, but it appears to me that you largely do not have data but criticized someone else's contributions. You knocked someone else's attempt to contribute because they said Nubia so NOW we gotta be skeptical of "the white man" again (but not your European source of course). Why are you acting like this simply because people impose the same standards you demanded for Beyoku's source?

quote:
It is pathetic considering I did nothing more than a few minutes of google searches yet you sit here and want to act like you can DEMAND how somebody does something to help you?

Like you did when Beyoku contributed? Don't go telling everyone they need to be more rigorous and mindful of data and conjecture provided to us by Europeans, and then get mad and complain about a lack of gratitude. Just because I'm not treating you any better than you did Beyoku doesn't make me the bad guy. Maybe you should review how you handle other people's contributions if you find it so offensive.

Getting that out of the way why did you do a few quick minutes on google, review no data and feel that to be a sufficient contribution when the relevance of this question carries in the balance your entire theory of a Sudanese origin? You keep ignoring once more the reason I'm not as interested in ignoring this. I get that there are subjects concerning Egypt that many wouldn't have thought to research. In that case people should thank their intellectual peers for being able to give them data as it comes.

This is not one of those cases though.


This isn't a "hot off the press" issue. Nor is this a peripheral matter. This is a matter of something so fundamental to what you've been arguing for years to have no data. To just be starting to do a few minutes of Google. Hell yea the people that have been taking your words seriously should be disappointed or confused. Especially when you come in here demanding us not to take scholars at their word! You were met with questions towards data because that's expected of you as someone who suggests those standards from others and has been on this issue for so long. You've been complaining so hard about the academic referrals to Nubia that just a source uttering the word Nubia gets you going. Someone asking for data so fundamental to showing distinctions are erroneous is not something that should throw you off balance at this point.

And I could see if this was just a problem of the light bulb in your head failing to go off on needing to take data more seriously. I've confessed to being fairly slow with wrapping my head around Egypt too. But you aren't slow you just don't care. Or at least it seems that way sometimes. You want everyone to ignore what standards you imposed on Beyoku's source like you're better, then rely on the opinion from someone whose European, because the same institutions making you upset because they're calling ancient people "Nubians" says he is reputable.


quote:
Why don't you read the paper and make your own conclusion then? I don't see from your response that you even read the papers in question.

I'm asking what specifically connects Naqada culture to features of the primary pastoral community. Obviously I'd have to have read what a primary pastoral community is in order to ask you that question. Or perhaps you didn't read your own source well enough to know the primary pastoral community was discussed in it at length? Reading the paper doesn't mean questions won't remain.


quote:
So why are you asking me about something I didn't write in the first place?

Because if you agree with it enough to post it here then the assumption is, the data backing it is something you found to be satisfactory. So naturally people may ask you why, or ask you questions so that they will see if they come to similar conclusions themselves.
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
And not once have you said anything about what you thought about the references provided. You are more worried about what I think than actually saying what you think. Like I said, don't ask me to do research and thinking for you.

I'm worried you have no data.
[/QUOTE}
Are you my nanny now? Why are you worried about me? And how is it you forget I gave you the references to data you asked for? You know like Rengrow and Gatto? Now if you don't like those references why don't you find your own? Because the only one at this point with no data is YOU since you are the one who opens threads with questions and then when somebody GIVES you some thing you act like you already have the answer with no data of your own.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

If you have no data what you think starts to lose the impact it could have had. Let me put this to you in another way: You complain endlessly about Eurocentrism when the subject is Nubia or some other issue Europeans talk about that you don't agree with. But when they say something you like, you rely on European authority to sell your point and not any data. The burden of proof is not on someone arguing the negative position. You are affirming the existence of a pastoral position that connects Egypt and Sudan. YOU need to have the data to support that. Strictly relying on the opinions of European scholars you will eventually discount as authorities when they don't agree with you doesn't count. You have been discussing the connection between people living in Egypt and Sudan endlessly to dismantle the idea of a "Nubia" existing in ancient times... Yet you have no data to suggest this is true.

And what are you doing except opening threads asking people about data published by Europeans on Africa? So what on earth did you expect to get? Seriously? Are you living in fantasy land or something? If YOU aren't writing papers and doing direct research and YOU don't know any black folks or Africans writing papers and doing any research then who else is going to be writing the papers and doing the research? And on top of that since when did it become YOUR job to defend Europeans against claims of racism? Are you a European? Otherwise I don't understand why you are so WORRIED about folks critiquing Europeans writing about African history when we know for a fact that Europeans have been and continue to practice racism within said studies. That doesn't mean all scholars are racist. But to sit here and pretend all scholarship is fair and objective is bull sh*t.

So why are you sitting here to pretend to lecture me about Eurocentrism? This very site has done nothing but debate Eurocentrism and Racism in the study of Africa for the last 15 years. So what on earth are you doing HERE of all places lecturing folks about what they can and cannot say about racism in the study of history. Who do YOU think YOU are to sit here and lecture me on that?

Not to mention all the black scholars who have come and gone and led the way on this field for the last 100 years up to and including Diop, Dr Clarke and others.

So what is your point? I get the feeling you are more worried about protecting white folks against backlash for their racism than actually discussing data.

If that is your purpose then fine. But don't tell me what I can say out my mouth about it. And don't tell me I don't have any data when YOU don't have any data meaning YOU aren't writing any papers, doing any actual scholarly research or out in the field digging up any artifacts to publish any DATA of your own. So who do you seriously think you are kidding? I hate forum jockeys who pretend they are more than forum jockeys.

If you are serious about doing research then do the dam research and publish some papers but save that passive aggressive forum jockeying for somebody else.

And racism or Eurocentrism aside, all scholars don't agree on everything. So this idea that everybody has to agree on everything is nonsense. Some scholars agree on certain theories and positions and some don't. There is going to always be disagreement. Being a scholar and publishing papers doesn't mean you are in agreement with everybody on anything.

Again, the bottom line is you are spending more time focusing on ME and what I have to say than the actual data I have provided.

So stop sitting here trying to change my opinions on the world because it isn't your place. Just take what I gave you and stay in your place.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

[QUOTE]
Meaning go read and look up these papers yourself and stop asking questions on forums when the data is available for anybody to go research. I went and found the references to Gatto in another thread that you started. So quit the nonsense already and go form your own opinions pretending to lecture me on something you don't even show the interest in looking up yourself.

YOU are the one suggesting the pastoral community existed and was a foundation for Egypt. It's not my point. You are in the rhetorical position of affirming. Stop relying on logical fallacies and shifting burdens of proof and just say you don't have any data yet! I am looking for DATA on the subject to form an opinion. In the absence of data it is logical to take the negative position. If you have no data, you have no foundation to selectively agree with European scholars who you'll then claim to be skeptical sources whenever someone says Nubian again.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
Are you publishing any papers on Egypt? And who on earth do you expect to be doing the research on ancient Egypt other than Europeans? Again, don't sit here and pretend to lecture me on what European scholars think when you know full well that those are the only people doing the research in the first place.

That's besides the point, regardless of whose doing research, you can have some idea of available data.

Don't you recall it was I who pointed out Gatto and the work on other teams doing research in Sudan and Upper Egypt in another thread you started? Who on earth do you think you are talking to about DATA?

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

And if there are African scholars doing it then why don't YOU already know who they are? Again, the point is why are you acting like you cant find these things yourself instead of asking a question then then pontificating about how somebody tries to help YOU out?

So you thought demanding skepticism and a call to be mindful of data for Beyoku's source was "helping" but so long as you get a separate standard for your contributions? But when you're held to the standards you talk about, that's a lack of gratitude. I never said I found nothing, I inquired here because I wanted to know if people who I expect to hold more experience with the subject of Egypt and Sudan to have data I can review to form an opinion. I will continue to look for data on this matter, but it appears to me that you largely do not have data but criticized someone else's contributions. You knocked someone else's attempt to contribute because they said Nubia so NOW we gotta be skeptical of "the white man" again (but not your European source of course). Why are you acting like this simply because people impose the same standards you demanded for Beyoku's source?

Beyoku's source? How is it HIS source? This is stuff YOU could have found yourself if you had done a basic google search like I did or anybody else did. You see you are not talking about the data that has been provided you are trying to lecture me about what I can say out of my mouth because if I recall correctly I posted something about Gatto in another thread based on my own google searches.

The point is I don't see where you have gone out and done anything in all these threads but ask questions and then sit here act like you are going to lecture somebody about what they think as if that is your place.

ESPECIALLY when I provided you the references and DATA on how the term "Nubia" and "Naqada" were defined and used by Petrie and others as a RACIAL term. So again, don't sit here and lecture me about anything when you don't even do the basic work of understanding the history of racism in the study of Egypt and how it impacts EVERYTHING about it.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
It is pathetic considering I did nothing more than a few minutes of google searches yet you sit here and want to act like you can DEMAND how somebody does something to help you?

Like you did when Beyoku contributed? Don't go telling everyone they need to be more rigorous and mindful of data and conjecture provided to us by Europeans, and then get mad and complain about a lack of gratitude. Just because I'm not treating you any better than you did Beyoku doesn't make me the bad guy. Maybe you should review how you handle other people's contributions if you find it so offensive.

Oshun, I have been posting data from Gatto for a while now. What data have you actually posted except to tell me I shouldn't call Europeans racist when they are racist.

The problem is you have been on this forum for how long and viewed all these threads and discussions yet you still come on here and post threads asking things you could dam well find for yourself. That is my point. You aren't new to Egyptsearch. You have been here quite awhile.

And if you are one of those closet white folks who like to come here and pretend to be black then stop pretending, like Ausar.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009796;p=2

Not to mention I posted extensive DATA about Gatto and others doing ACTUAL work in Egypt in this thread and ANOTHER thread of yours. So don't tell me about data.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009847;p=1#000027

Suffice to say you have been provided the actual data on the actual scholars doing ACTUAL research that may answer the questions you have. Other than that you are just wasting your time talking about nothing.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

Getting that out of the way why did you do a few quick minutes on google, review no data and feel that to be a sufficient contribution when the relevance of this question carries in the balance your entire theory of a Sudanese origin? You keep ignoring once more the reason I'm not as interested in ignoring this. I get that there are subjects concerning Egypt that many wouldn't have thought to research. In that case people should thank their intellectual peers for being able to give them data as it comes.

This is not one of those cases though.


This isn't a "hot off the press" issue. Nor is this a peripheral matter. This is a matter of something so fundamental to what you've been arguing for years to have no data. To just be starting to do a few minutes of Google. Hell yea the people that have been taking your words seriously should be disappointed or confused. Especially when you come in here demanding us not to take scholars at their word! You were met with questions towards data because that's expected of you as someone who suggests those standards from others and has been on this issue for so long. You've been complaining so hard about the academic referrals to Nubia that just a source uttering the word Nubia gets you going. Someone asking for data so fundamental to showing distinctions are erroneous is not something that should throw you off balance at this point.

And I could see if this was just a problem of the light bulb in your head failing to go off on needing to take data more seriously. I've confessed to being fairly slow with wrapping my head around Egypt too. But you aren't slow you just don't care. Or at least it seems that way sometimes. You want everyone to ignore what standards you imposed on Beyoku's source like you're better, then rely on the opinion from someone whose European, because the same institutions making you upset because they're calling ancient people "Nubians" says he is reputable.


quote:
Why don't you read the paper and make your own conclusion then? I don't see from your response that you even read the papers in question.

I'm asking what specifically connects Naqada culture to features of the primary pastoral community. Obviously I'd have to have read what a primary pastoral community is in order to ask you that question. Or perhaps you didn't read your own source well enough to know the primary pastoral community was discussed in it at length? Reading the paper doesn't mean questions won't remain.


quote:
So why are you asking me about something I didn't write in the first place?

Because if you agree with it enough to post it here then the assumption is, the data backing it is something you found to be satisfactory. So naturally people may ask you why, or ask you questions so that they will see if they come to similar conclusions themselves.

Like I said read the papers and the data provided and you will find the answers there. And if that isn't enough do more research on your own to find the data you are looking for. You have more than enough to start with.
Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Linda Fahr
Member
Member # 21979

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Linda Fahr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am absolutely sure, that pottery designs does define ethnicity, because I followed two African ethnic groups since their paleolithic period, to their neolithic period for the last 10 years.

What I found, was that one paleolithic group from Namibia, which I think may be the Khoisan had a distinct asymmetrical art style.
I followed Khoisan's rock carving asymmetrical design from Namibia to Marocco during paleolithic period. And the Bantu people, which are

The other paleolithic group was from Congo- Bantu people, which it's subgroup called Mbo, now living in Cameron, which had a unique linear symmetrical art style. They were the creators of Ishango bone.
I followed them from Congo to Chad, where they made paleolithic carvings in Chad.

I followed Khoisan's rock carving asymmetrical design from Namibia to Marocco during paleolithic period. And the Bantu people, which are

--------------------
---lnnnnn*

Posts: 147 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Linda Fahr
Member
Member # 21979

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Linda Fahr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am absolutely sure, that pottery designs does define ethnicity, because I followed two African ethnic groups since their paleolithic period, to their neolithic period for the last 10 years.

What I found, was that, one paleolithic group from Namibia, which I think may be the Khoisan had a distinct creative circular asymmetrical art style design.
I followed Khoisan's rock carvings circular asymmetrical design from Namibia to Marocco during paleolithic period.

The other paleolithic group was from Congo- Bantu people, which it's subgroup called Mbo, now living in Cameron, had a unique linear symmetrical art style. They were the creators of Ishango bone.
I followed them from Congo to Chad, where they made paleolithic carvings.

Suddenly, I found on Bell-Beaker culture, individually pottery jars with the Mbo Bantu group linear symmetrical design art style, and Khoisan circular asymmetrical style as well on Bell-Beaker pottery jars in Europe.

Again for my surprise, I found both groups art styles, linear symmetrical design style, of the Bantu Mdo, and circular asymmetrical arts style of Khoisan combined on single pottery jars. Which means that, both groups were at the same European regions developing side by side the Bell-Beaker culture, and absorbed each other art styles...

--------------------
---lnnnnn*

Posts: 147 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

Are you my nanny now? Why are you worried about me? And how is it you forget I gave you the references to data you asked for? You know like Rengrow and Gatto?

Who said I was worried about you specifically? Being concerned that there's a lack of data attached to the theory of a Sudanese origin is a problem for me and/or anyone who believes in a Sudanese origin, regardless of what you do.


quote:
Now if you don't like those references why don't you find your own?

The issue is that you have no data.You demanded a standard of behavior and thought process towards European thinkers but then don't want to follow through with those demands if their conjecture is presented by you.

quote:
Because the only one at this point with no data is YOU since you are the one who opens threads with questions and then when somebody GIVES you some thing you act like you already have the answer with no data of your own.

You're forgetting that you are the one who started talking about how we need not take European scholars or scholars from their institutions at their word. Now you're mad when someone holds you to the idea of demanding more than conjecture and assumes you have some understanding of Naqada culture you can tie to what you read. How do you burst into other threads nearly derailing it on your cries of Nubia and be on this sort of thing for years, but you have no data that ties Sudan and Egypt together culturally during this formative development?


quote:
And what are you doing except opening threads asking people about data published by Europeans on Africa? So what on earth did you expect to get?

You're not reading what I said properly. You're imposing your own selective disdain for European academia on me. The issue isn't that you discuss published works from European academia. The problem is that you're being selective in deciding when their opinions alone are enough and when we need to have some assemblage of data on hand.


quote:

So what is your point? I get the feeling you are more worried about protecting white folks against backlash for their racism than actually discussing data.

And I get the feeling these accusations are mere deflections. You are the one who said not to take them at their word and to review what they say against data so that people could hold them accountable for racism. Then you turned around and discussed Wengrow's opinions with little review of his data. Holding you to the behavior that you insist should be so standard, you didn't thank Beyoku because the way he posted failed to meet those standards is not "defending whitey." It's imposing onto you what you suggest would be right to do for everyone else. Saying you're not special compared to other people here with the demands your put forward is not worshiping people of other races.


quote:
And racism or Eurocentrism aside, all scholars don't agree on everything. So this idea that everybody has to agree on everything is nonsense. Some scholars agree on certain theories and positions and some don't.

Which is precisely why you were talking about Gatto and Nubia. Which is precisely why you were talking about holding them to data and not simply their word. If you understand this, then I don't see how you are surprised that you are met with questions about what data supports Wengrow's opinion. Scholars don't have to agree, but they can formulate their differences in opinion with DATA. You don't have any data on Naqada culture that you can tie to what you supposedly read. I'm talking about the primary pastoral community (which is referring to the specific language he uses to describe Sudanese culture) and you didn't even recognize that when you accused me of not reading. Did you get beyond reading the absract?


quote:
Again, the bottom line is you are spending more time focusing on ME and what I have to say than the actual data I have provided.

I already tried to ask you what data exists that ties Naqada culture's origins to the pastoral community of Sudan that he talks about. You don't have any data to discuss! We're discussing your standards of review over your "data" because not only did you impose it in this thread on others, there may potentially be merit in the standards you proposed. It could possibly make ES members stronger in the theories they present, by relying more data than conjecture. But your problem is that you're expecting that to be a standard for "other people" and not you.

quote:
So stop sitting here trying to change my opinions on the world because it isn't your place. Just take what I gave you and stay in your place.

How can I change your opinion on data that presumably connects Naqada culture Sudan when you have none? Or are you telling me to stop talking about the opinion that it's okay for you to demand standards for other people's posts that you don't follow? That won't be happening in my threads. You will follow the same logic you demand of others or you can leave.

I don't want to deal with selective European skepticism. Relying on European authority to sell a point cause you don't want to learn anything about Naqada culture that ties it to Sudan and then whining about how they ain't sh!t when they disagree with you. That kind of thing was what made this place a cesspit before we finally got mods. This is my thread, you can leave if you're going to selectively use the subject of racism to decry and rely on European scholarly conjecture as a vehicle to place yourself above other people here. If you are cool with not doing that, feel free to stay, but I can assure you that you will probably be a lot less comfortable if you resume. You have a fairly interesting standard you suggest to put forward. So I'm holding you to it.


quote:
Don't you recall it was I who pointed out Gatto and the work on other teams doing research in Sudan and Upper Egypt in another thread you started? Who on earth do you think you are talking to about DATA?

What does that have to do with the fact that within the context of this conversation Beyoku brought up Gatto and you trashed the source when HE presented it, over a standard you don't want to follow through with when it's YOU presenting the scholar. You weren't any closer than Beyoku in presenting Gatto as a resource for this type of question or you'd have already used her work to connect her data to what you've posted with regards to Wengrow. We've already established you place yourself above others in this regard so it wouldn't surprise me if you posted up about the same person in another thread, but have an entirely different reaction based on whether or not you are presenting their work with regards to a question.

And why are you trying to claim Beyoku's contribution to THIS question? It's not especially unheard of for ES to discuss the same scholars on different topics. You didn't "discover" Gatto for ES and even if you did, that doesn't mean it's your discovery when other people find different questions and issues to apply their work. So yes, it was BEYOKU that posted the source and so he's credited. WTF not only are you not going to thank him the way you want to be thanked you want to claim his contribution now too? Are you kidding right now!

You didn't thank him for introducing the idea of Gatto for THIS question, you instead went on his source to answer the question and critiqued the idea of taking her at her word through dissecting her talk of Nubians. Notice how I didn't say anything initially because I was considering the importance of such a standard to ES against the fact Beyoku wasn't in here agreeing to make such demands, he just contributed a person and paper he thought might help. But then as you continue it becomes increasingly apparent (or at least likely) this isn't about improving the credibility of ES and the strength of theories that develop from here. YOU just want better treatment-- a red carpet and standing ovation for a few minutes of google, for your source on his opinion alone. You have no data to provide yet just got through carrying on when someone else suggests a scholar's work can be applied to a subject. and clearly you did not read fully the source you presented.





quote:


The problem is you have been on this forum for how long and viewed all these threads and discussions yet you still come on here and post threads asking things you could dam well find for yourself. That is my point. You aren't new to Egyptsearch. You have been here quite awhile.

This is a very ironic comment coming from someone who had no data about this subject after all the years you've carried on about it.


quote:
Not to mention I posted extensive DATA about Gatto and others doing ACTUAL work in Egypt in this thread and ANOTHER thread of yours. So don't tell me about data.

I just want you to consider what you're saying for a second. Would failing to pay a mortgage or rent be acceptable because you paid it in the past? Would failing to feed a child because you did so the day before be acceptable? Does a minister get a pass for spending his money on abhorent things because he previously spent his money on good things? Why are you citing other threads to justify yourself here? Even if you're suggesting better behavior in the past it doesn't make what you're doing now okay.


quote:
Suffice to say you have been provided the actual data on the actual scholars doing ACTUAL research that may answer the questions you have. Other than that you are just wasting your time talking about nothing.

Scholars are not data. Gatto didn't get a pass from you when Beyoku posted because she does research. When asked you also didn't have any data on Naqada culture you could connect to what Wengrow is talking about. If that's how you're gonna get down just remember that whenever someone says Nubia.


quote:

Like I said read the papers and the data provided and you will find the answers there. And if that isn't enough do more research on your own to find the data you are looking for. You have more than enough to start with.

And what if the data isn't there? I would be searching to prove YOUR position forever. If you are in the affirming position, it is not the position of someone who asks for proof to go look for. Imagine if someone was arguing Pikachu was real and told anyone who wanted proof that they need to go looking for the data to prove that he's real. There's no guarantee the data exists to be found beyond your affirming it does. You rely on the faith the viewer has that your assumptions (with no data) are correct and this approach will of course serve no one outside of ES very well when discussing this theory with other people. This of course weakens the community because it becomes quickly apparent to onlookers that what holds it together (for many people) is a faith of a predetermined narrative that transcends data. You're shifting burdens of proof to people it doesn't belong to and clinging to logical fallacy to sustain your refusal to review Naqada culture to a capacity that is essential to your view that it's Sudanese in origin.
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

Are you my nanny now? Why are you worried about me? And how is it you forget I gave you the references to data you asked for? You know like Rengrow and Gatto?

Who said I was worried about you specifically? Being concerned that there's a lack of data attached to the theory of a Sudanese origin is a problem for me and/or anyone who believes in a Sudanese origin, regardless of what you do.

If you didn't READ the data how on earth are you claiming it wasn't provided? Are you paying attention? I still have yet to see you quote, cite or reference ANY PART of said data yet you keep going on and on about what I am doing. Why are you so concerned about what I am doing?

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:
Now if you don't like those references why don't you find your own?

The issue is that you have no data.You demanded a standard of behavior and thought process towards European thinkers but then don't want to follow through with those demands if their conjecture is presented by you.

No. The only thing I am DEMANDING is that you read the data that was provided and stop spouting off nonsense that has nothing to do with the ACTUAL data that was provided. How on earth are you going to sit here and have this long drag on discussion when it ADDED a link to the ACTUAL pdf with relevant information and you have NOT YET discussed any of said data?

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:
Because the only one at this point with no data is YOU since you are the one who opens threads with questions and then when somebody GIVES you some thing you act like you already have the answer with no data of your own.

You're forgetting that you are the one who started talking about how we need not take European scholars or scholars from their institutions at their word. Now you're mad when someone holds you to the idea of demanding more than conjecture and assumes you have some understanding of Naqada culture you can tie to what you read. How do you burst into other threads nearly derailing it on your cries of Nubia and be on this sort of thing for years, but you have no data that ties Sudan and Egypt together culturally during this formative development?

I know what I said and I will say it again, the history of the Nile Valley has been broken up into phases based on POTTERY shards and to a lesser extent human remains. I already provided the DATA from Petrie and Reisner who came up with this naming system. I also said that "Nubia" was originally defined in terms of a "racial" group separate from the Nile Valley in what is now Egypt. But sure, lets pretend none of this matters to the discussion. Not to mention I provided UP TO DATE information on the study of the Nile Valley and Sudan and you have yet to read the data provided. So at this point you are just more concerned about me talking about "race". But who are you to tell me how to think and what to think about "race", "racism" or anything else?

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:
And what are you doing except opening threads asking people about data published by Europeans on Africa? So what on earth did you expect to get?

You're not reading what I said properly. You're imposing your own selective disdain for European academia on me. The issue isn't that you discuss published works from European academia. The problem is that you're being selective in deciding when their opinions alone are enough and when we need to have some assemblage of data on hand.

Again you are pretending to lecture me on something and not addressing the facts. And firstly it is not your place to tell me how I should view anybody or anything on any topic. You don't have to agree with me on it but don't tell me I can't have views and opinions of my own on things. And on top of that I posted data from European authors for you to look at yet you sit here and pretend that I didn't. You are confused. Egyptology as an institution and body of knowledge was founded by folks who in the past were very blatantly racist. I don't care if you don't like it but that is just a fact. The modern institution of Egyptology still maintains some of those views as it was founded on them. Doesn't mean all folks in Egyptology are bad or racist but some are and some of the views of Egyptology as a discipline can absolutely be considered racist. But don't sit here and pretend to tell me about what Europeans can and be called out on when the fact is that most European anthropology from the 1700s right to the 1970s was openly and blatantly racist.

But again, none of that has anything to do with the data that was provided and YOU still haven't looked at or quoted. So you HAVE NO position other than trying to sit here and pretend somebody is beating up on Europeans for no reason. Don't play that silly game with me.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:

So what is your point? I get the feeling you are more worried about protecting white folks against backlash for their racism than actually discussing data.

And I get the feeling these accusations are mere deflections. You are the one who said not to take them at their word and to review what they say against data so that people could hold them accountable for racism. Then you turned around and discussed Wengrow's opinions with little review of his data. Holding you to the behavior that you insist should be so standard, you didn't thank Beyoku because the way he posted failed to meet those standards is not "defending whitey." It's imposing onto you what you suggest would be right to do for everyone else. Saying you're not special compared to other people here with the demands your put forward is not worshiping people of other races.

I am saying point blank you still haven't referenced, cited or quoted one word from any of the data provided yet you still are sitting here telling me how I should look at "race" and "racism" and European scholars. Who on earth do you think you are talking to? It isn't your place to tell me how I should or should not view those things. If you want to discuss the data then discuss it but at this point your pontificating is pointless as YOU aren't even talking about the data that was actually provided. You are more concerned with talking about me personally.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:
And racism or Eurocentrism aside, all scholars don't agree on everything. So this idea that everybody has to agree on everything is nonsense. Some scholars agree on certain theories and positions and some don't.

Which is precisely why you were talking about Gatto and Nubia. Which is precisely why you were talking about holding them to data and not simply their word. If you understand this, then I don't see how you are surprised that you are met with questions about what data supports Wengrow's opinion. Scholars don't have to agree, but they can formulate their differences in opinion with DATA. You don't have any data on Naqada culture that you can tie to what you supposedly read. I'm talking about the primary pastoral community (which is referring to the specific language he uses to describe Sudanese culture) and you didn't even recognize that when you accused me of not reading. Did you get beyond reading the absract?

You have yet to quote, cite or reference any SPECIFIC data from Gatto or Wengrow as to why you think THEIR DATA is lacking. So again, the only conclusion I can come to is you are on a personal mission to tell me about HOW I should think about scholarship, history and "race" when the fact is it isn't your place to tell me ANYTHING about how I should view "race" or "racism". Do you get that? What SPECIFIC data in Wengrow or Gatto do you have questions about because right now you have not mentioned NOTHING from either one of them yet you spout all this nonsense about data. Stop wasting my time.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:
Again, the bottom line is you are spending more time focusing on ME and what I have to say than the actual data I have provided.

I already tried to ask you what data exists that ties Naqada culture's origins to the pastoral community of Sudan that he talks about. You don't have any data to discuss! We're discussing your standards of review over your "data" because not only did you impose it in this thread on others, there may potentially be merit in the standards you proposed. It could possibly make ES members stronger in the theories they present, by relying more data than conjecture. But your problem is that you're expecting that to be a standard for "other people" and not you.

I gave you references to scholars who wrote papers and provided data that you still have yet to read, reference or quote anywhere in this discussion as opposed to being on a personal crusade to tell me how I should think about "race" and "racism" in academia which is NOT your place. Do you understand the difference?

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:
So stop sitting here trying to change my opinions on the world because it isn't your place. Just take what I gave you and stay in your place.

How can I change your opinion on data that presumably connects Naqada culture Sudan when you have none? Or are you telling me to stop talking about the opinion that it's okay for you to demand standards for other people's posts that you don't follow? That won't be happening in my threads. You will follow the same logic you demand of others or you can leave.

Stop going in circles and missing the point. The data has been provided. Either cite and reference the SPECIFIC DATA that you feel is missing from either Gatto or Wengrow that you feel does not address your question or stop replying to me. It is not your place to tell me how to think or how to feel about any topic or fact or issue so stop pretenting to try and tell me how to do so. The only standard here is you actually address the DATA that has been provided and stop trying to use these threads as an excuse to go on a crusade against people that have different views than you. You have no place to tell anybody how to think or how to view any topic and most certainly not me. Now either address the data that has been offered or stop posting to me. Its quite simple. And stop trying to tell me how I should think and feel about things. Its not your place to do so.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

I don't want to deal with selective European skepticism. Relying on European authority to sell a point cause you don't want to learn anything about Naqada culture that ties it to Sudan and then whining about how they ain't sh!t when they disagree with you. That kind of thing was what made this place a cesspit before we finally got mods. This is my thread, you can leave if you're going to selectively use the subject of racism to decry and rely on European scholarly conjecture as a vehicle to place yourself above other people here. If you are cool with not doing that, feel free to stay, but I can assure you that you will probably be a lot less comfortable if you resume. You have a fairly interesting standard you suggest to put forward. So I'm holding you to it.


It is your thread but don't sit here and tell me that these threads are being created to lure people in so that you can LECTURE them about how they should view, discuss, believe, address or feel about any specific topic. This isn't your place and you don't have a "right" to tell me such things. Either discuss the data or stop replying to me. Yes it is "your" thread, but don't sit here and pretend that gives you (or anyone else) the right to IMPOSE beliefs, ideas or agendas on others because they differ from yours. Neither I nor anybody else has the right to do that to you and you don't have the right to do that to me and I don't care how many thread you start.

And seeing as you haven't still addressed any data provided I don't see it as anything more than you using threads as a platform to lecture people in a passive aggressive manner which I will not tolerate.

So stop kidding yourself.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:
Don't you recall it was I who pointed out Gatto and the work on other teams doing research in Sudan and Upper Egypt in another thread you started? Who on earth do you think you are talking to about DATA?

What does that have to do with the fact that within the context of this conversation Beyoku brought up Gatto and you trashed the source when HE presented it, over a standard you don't want to follow through with when it's YOU presenting the scholar. You weren't any closer than Beyoku in presenting Gatto as a resource for this type of question or you'd have already used her work to connect her data to what you've posted with regards to Wengrow. We've already established you place yourself above others in this regard so it wouldn't surprise me if you posted up about the same person in another thread, but have an entirely different reaction based on whether or not you are presenting their work with regards to a question.

And where have you actually discussed Gatto's data or Wengrow's data. You are spending more time and effort telling me how I should think than actually talking about the actual data which has been provided numerous times. Again YOU should already be familiar with Gatto, Wengrow and other folks as they are the ones doing the work in the field. So why on earth are you sitting here acting like someone on this forum is really doing something "special" beyond what you could have done yourself. All this information is publicly on the internet.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

And why are you trying to claim Beyoku's contribution to THIS question? It's not especially unheard of for ES to discuss the same scholars on different topics. You didn't "discover" Gatto for ES and even if you did, that doesn't mean it's your discovery when other people find different questions and issues to apply their work. So yes, it was BEYOKU that posted the source and so he's credited. WTF not only are you not going to thank him the way you want to be thanked you want to claim his contribution now too? Are you kidding right now!

Why are you not specifically talking about what Gatto ACTUALLY WROTE instead of telling me what I can and cannot think? Don't you get it? It is not your PLACE and nobody ELSE on this forum to tell me what to think about anything or how to talk about it. Now if you WANT to address Gatto and Wengrow then why don't you ACTUALLY discuss Gatto and Wenfrow and stop having such a fixation on trying to tell me what to do? It isn't your place and you are wasting your time.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

You didn't thank him for introducing the idea of Gatto for THIS question, you instead went on his source to answer the question and critiqued the idea of taking her at her word through dissecting her talk of Nubians. Notice how I didn't say anything initially because I was considering the importance of such a standard to ES against the fact Beyoku wasn't in here agreeing to make such demands, he just contributed a person and paper he thought might help. But then as you continue it becomes increasingly apparent (or at least likely) this isn't about improving the credibility of ES and the strength of theories that develop from here. YOU just want better treatment-- a red carpet and standing ovation for a few minutes of google, for your source on his opinion alone. You have no data to provide yet just got through carrying on when someone else suggests a scholar's work can be applied to a subject. and clearly you did not read fully the source you presented.

Why are you not actually addressing the DATA from Gatto instead of talking about me and what I should and should not do? You asked the question yet you have done nothing but avoid talking directly about the actual data provided. You can't claim there was no data provided and since none of US including YOU or BEYOKOU or any of these other folks are actually writing books or papers you cant sit here and claim they "OWN" the data because they don't. How silly does that sound. Stop trying to use the thread as a platform to try and passive agressively attack me for saying white folks have been racist towards the study of history. It is obvious that this is your main goal and mission at this point and not actually discussing the data.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:


The problem is you have been on this forum for how long and viewed all these threads and discussions yet you still come on here and post threads asking things you could dam well find for yourself. That is my point. You aren't new to Egyptsearch. You have been here quite awhile.

This is a very ironic comment coming from someone who had no data about this subject after all the years you've carried on about it.

How is that? I didn't open a thread asking about Naqada did I? YOU did. So why aren't you talking about that DATA instead of talking about me. This is the point I am trying to get you to understand.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:
Not to mention I posted extensive DATA about Gatto and others doing ACTUAL work in Egypt in this thread and ANOTHER thread of yours. So don't tell me about data.

I just want you to consider what you're saying for a second. Would failing to pay a mortgage or rent be acceptable because you paid it in the past? Would failing to feed a child because you did so the day before be acceptable? Does a minister get a pass for spending his money on abhorent things because he previously spent his money on good things? Why are you citing other threads to justify yourself here? Even if you're suggesting better behavior in the past it doesn't make what you're doing now okay.

What on earth does that have to do with the content of the actual papers from Gatto or Renfrow or anybody else? Would you please stop speaking nonsense?

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]
quote:
Suffice to say you have been provided the actual data on the actual scholars doing ACTUAL research that may answer the questions you have. Other than that you are just wasting your time talking about nothing.

Scholars are not data. Gatto didn't get a pass from you when Beyoku posted because she does research. When asked you also didn't have any data on Naqada culture you could connect to what Wengrow is talking about. If that's how you're gonna get down just remember that whenever someone says Nubia.

Wengrow and Gatto are two scholars in the field. I have posted data about Gatto's work in other threads. The point I am making and the part you DON'T understand is that the history of how the phases of the Nile Valley were defined have been problematic for a very long time. This is not new and this is partially addressed by Gatto, yet as with any scholar you have to understand WHY the history of how terms like "Naqada", "Badarian" and "Nubian" are problematic. If you don't understand that then I can't help you. This is not an issue specific to Gatto but it is a problem with Egyptology overall. That was my point. You just want to sit here and pontificate as if you actually know what you are talking about when you don't.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

[qb]Like I said read the papers and the data provided and you will find the answers there. And if that isn't enough do more research on your own to find the data you are looking for. You have more than enough to start with.

And what if the data isn't there? I would be searching to prove YOUR position forever. If you are in the affirming position, it is not the position of someone who asks for proof to go look for. Imagine if someone was arguing Pikachu was real and told anyone who wanted proof that they need to go looking for the data to prove that he's real. There's no guarantee the data exists to be found beyond your affirming it does. You rely on the faith the viewer has that your assumptions (with no data) are correct and this approach will of course serve no one outside of ES very well when discussing this theory with other people. This of course weakens the community because it becomes quickly apparent to onlookers that what holds it together (for many people) is a faith of a predetermined narrative that transcends data. You're shifting burdens of proof to people it doesn't belong to and clinging to logical fallacy to sustain your refusal to review Naqada culture to a capacity that is essential to your view that it's Sudanese in origin.

Oshun don't write long winded posts to try and Bull sh*t your way through this. You didn't read any of the DATA provided. So everything you are saying makes no sense. If you have READ the data then you would actually DISCUSS said data instead of talking about nonsense.
Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And on the point of actual data:

quote:

Conclusion

The question will inevitably, and rightly, be asked: what kind of historical entity is the "primary pastoral community"? Clearly it is inconceivable that communities throughout the entire length of the Nile Valley, a distance of c. 1800km, shared anything approaching a conscious social identity (e.g. of the sort that could be articulated in tribal or ethnic terms) during the fifth millennium BC. Instead, what came to be shared across this extensive region were the materials and practices including, and perhaps especially, modes of ritual practice out of which more local contrasts and group identities were constructed. It may be precisely the maintenance of local differences within a shared social milieu that gave rise simultaneously to such geographically expansive uniformities and, within them, to the kind of internal variations observed in ceramic assemblages and other traditional markers of archaeological "cultures" (cf. Gatto 2002; Kobusiewicz et al. 2010: 152 57). Recent work on the origins of Eurasian steppe pastoralism (e.g. Hanks & Linduff 2009; Frachetti 2012) usefully demonstrates how incremental processes of this kind may be rapidly escalated by the intensification of stockbreeding as a mode of livelihood and common measure of value. They are not, however, unique to mobile or pastoral societies in Old World prehistory.

We conclude by emphasising that our definition of a "primary pastoral community" in the Nile Valley is a holistic one, giving equal weight to empirically observable uniformities in ritual practice, material culture and ecology. As such it stands in contrast to the recent and narrower focus on environmental stress as a long-term driver of cultural change in north-east Africa. It seems important to insist on this methodological distinction, not least because such recent catastrophes as the genocide in Darfur have been linked to what are supposedly millennia-old cycles of climate-driven demographic change (Kuper & Kroepelin 2006: 807). From an archaeological point of view we hope, at the very least, to have demonstrated that alternative interpretations of Africa’s deep past and hence of its more immediate future are not only possible, but also plausible.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/198005B5D23B644951E17B3F0803AF74/S0003598X00050249a.pdf/cultural_convergence_in_the_neolithic_of_the_nile_va lley_a_prehistoric_perspective_on_egypts_place_in_africa.pdf
Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
If you didn't READ the data how on earth are you claiming it wasn't provided? Are you paying attention?

You serious? You were asked what data supports the idea of the pastoral commuinity was at the root of Naqada culture and you didn't have an answer. If you cannot connect what he puts forward to the question, it's providing information but not data that can sufficiently support the conclusion Naqada was part of this pastoral community.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
I still have yet to see you quote, cite or reference ANY PART of said data yet you keep going on and on about what I am doing. Why are you so concerned about what I am doing?

So you didn't hear the part where I asked you how Naqada is tied to the primary pastoral community? A term Wengrow discusses in his work? I read the paper, so what I was trying to see was what available data on Naqada connect to this community he speaks of? I will continue to review his work and others to see if this questioned is answered. Though I'm just surprised you don't have it because you took him for his word with no data to support the connection to Naqada but prior to that you posted a critique of taking Gatto for her word when Beyoku posted up.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
The only thing I am DEMANDING is that you read the data that was provided and stop spouting off nonsense that has nothing to do with the ACTUAL data that was provided.

Naqada culture's connection to Sudan is irrelevant to his discussions of a primary pastoral community that stretches from Egypt and Sudan? How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?


quote:
How on earth are you going to sit here and have this long drag on discussion when it ADDED a link to the ACTUAL pdf with relevant information and you have NOT YET discussed any of said data?

Asking you what data on Naqada culture ties to his outline on the features of a primary pastoral tradition IS talking about his research.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:I know what I said and I will say it again, the history of the Nile Valley has been broken up into phases based on POTTERY shards and to a lesser extent human remains. I already provided the DATA from Petrie and Reisner who came up with this naming system. I also said that "Nubia" was originally defined in terms of a "racial" group separate from the Nile Valley in what is now Egypt. But sure, lets pretend none of this matters to the discussion.

It doesn't. No one's talking about the fact you caution taking European scholars (or any scholars for that matter) at their opinions alone. The issue is that when it comes to scholars saying something you disagree with, only THEN it is time to focus on data. But when they say something you agree with, THEN you want to turn tail and get defensive about being asked what data supports their conclusions.

quote:
Not to mention I provided UP TO DATE information on the study of the Nile Valley and Sudan and you have yet to read the data provided.

I asked you how Naqada culture ties to the primary pastoral community Wengrow talks about, you haven't provided data on the question. Instead you got defensive. This goes against how you treated Beyoku's source when discussing Gatto. Oh no then it was all about being skeptical about the opinions about researchers.



quote:
And firstly it is not your place to tell me how I should view anybody or anything on any topic. You don't have to agree with me on it but don't tell me I can't have views and opinions of my own on things.

I'm telling you that you cannot make demands of others you won't follow through with yourself. You're not speshul. You can expect a response from me about it if you do it in MY thread. Don't like it? Leave then. Don't tell me I HAVE to treat you above everyone else. I am not going to do it. If you feel entitled to special treatment go elsewhere where you can get it.


quote:

And on top of that I posted data from European authors for you to look at yet you sit here and pretend that I didn't. You are confused.
Egyptology as an institution and body of knowledge was founded by folks who in the past were very blatantly racist. I don't care if you don't like it but that is just a fact. The modern institution of Egyptology still maintains some of those views as it was founded on them. Doesn't mean all folks in Egyptology are bad or racist but some are and some of the views of Egyptology as a discipline can absolutely be considered racist. But don't sit here and pretend to tell me about what Europeans can and be called out on when the fact is that most European anthropology from the 1700s right to the 1970s was openly and blatantly racist.

No one's criticizing you acknowledgement of the history of racism in academia. What's being criticized is that you're using these types of issues to create a different standard for yourself compared to everyone else. Academic racism is not going to make it okay for you to rely solely on the opinions of a European scholar while telling others that it's insufficient to take the European scholars they present at their word.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You have yet to quote, cite or reference any SPECIFIC data from Gatto or Wengrow as to why you think THEIR DATA is lacking.

First of all, the question was directed to you and your reference of Wengrow. I was not talking to Beyoku about his reference of Gatto (not here at least). Second, in my noting a possible absence of data from the resource provided that needed clarity, I was referencing and discussing what I was given. You keep saying you don't think your source is lacking but don't have any way of connecting Naqada culture-- the main culture of predynastic Egypt to the primary pastoral community. This means you're just going along with what they're saying on the faith it's true because you hear something you like. Until you can show what data they have that would support that point, referencing their opinions will be insufficient in answering this question.


quote:
So again, the only conclusion I can come to is you are on a personal mission to tell me about HOW I should think about scholarship, history and "race" when the fact is it isn't your place to tell me ANYTHING about how I should view "race" or "racism". Do you get that?

It's my place to tell you that you're not going to demand higher standards of posting from others you won't abide by yourself. If you don't think it's my place to tell you you're not better than anybody else pack. the. hell. up. It's that simple: leave then because I'm not stopping.


quote:
What SPECIFIC data in Wengrow or Gatto do you have questions about because right now you have not mentioned NOTHING from either one of them yet you spout all this nonsense about data. Stop wasting my time.

So you didn't hear me ask what data ties the Naqada culture to the primary pastoral community? Several times? If you feel your time's being wasted go to another thread. Go on. shoo! [Roll Eyes]



quote:
I gave you references to scholars who wrote papers and provided data that you still have yet to read, reference or quote anywhere in this discussion as opposed to being on a personal crusade to tell me how I should think about "race" and "racism" in academia which is NOT your place. Do you understand the difference?

I don't care what you think about race as long as you don't use race as a pretense to demand better treatment than that of other posters. I read Wengrow, and asked what ties Naqada culture to the primary pastoral community. You had no data to discuss. If you did you'd have posted something by now. It's possible I may find something from Wengrow or other works later. But that is a measurement of my faith in the scholar, which you just said not to hold when it was Beyoku presenting Gatto. Again using racism as a pretense to get special treatment from what you put forward over everyone else.


quote:
It is your thread but don't sit here and tell me that these threads are being created to lure people in so that you can LECTURE them about how they should view, discuss, believe, address or feel about any specific topic.

No one "lured you" to derail this thread and Beyoku's post to whine about Nubians. That had NOTHING to do with the topic which is why you caught heat in the first place. You imposed standards you won't follow and don't like people telling you they notice. WHO the hell asked you to waltz your A$$ up in here to LECTURE others about their sources, but then become a whiny diva when it's time for yout sources to be criticized the same way. If you don't like being treated like you're not better than Beyoku then prance the hell up out my thread.



quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Again YOU should already be familiar with Gatto, Wengrow and other folks as they are the ones doing the work in the field. So why on earth are you sitting here acting like someone on this forum is really doing something "special" beyond what you could have done yourself. All this information is publicly on the internet.

How are you going to suggest I should be familiar with Gatto or Wengrow with respect to this question (like I shouldn't be asking this question because they exist) when you couldn't even answer how Sudan is connected to Naqada culture after all this time of you derailing threads to cry about the very idea of Nubia being a prop of intellectual racism? You couldn't even connect their works to the subject.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Why are you not specifically talking about what Gatto ACTUALLY WROTE instead of telling me what I can and cannot think?

And who says I haven't discussed Gatto in PM? I don't have anything to gain asking you because you clearly aren't going to put any of her work towards answering the question you've been asked several times. You also made a point to nearly derail my thread complaining about her as source on some crap that's irrelevant to what I'm asking. Maybe I don't feel like dealing with that nonsense right now, so I summed up where I am with her work privately. I've got enough going on trying to see how the primary pastoral community ties with Naqada which if answered could provide a good deal of help in proving the Naqada culture was Sudanese in origin. Wengrow is getting more emphasis because his work suggests the origin for both the Naqada and the so-called Nubians can be placed in SUDAN. He responds to the claims that both Naqada and now even "Nubian" people are the result of wandering "Eurasian" people or culture. So why don't you answer my questions concerning what data backs Wengrow and his position on the primary pastoral? Because you can't after you made all those demands you made from Beyoku's source? Even if people do choose to have faith in your sources from time to time which I can attempt in this particular instance, what's wrong is you're acting as though everyone is obligated to hold enough faith in how correct your source's opinions are. You frequently shift burdens of proof so that you can be lazy with data.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:

quote:
Not to mention I posted extensive DATA about Gatto and others doing ACTUAL work in Egypt in this thread and ANOTHER thread of yours. So don't tell me about data.

I just want you to consider what you're saying for a second. Would failing to pay a mortgage or rent be acceptable because you paid it in the past? Would failing to feed a child because you did so the day before be acceptable? Does a minister get a pass for spending his money on abhorent things because he previously spent his money on good things? Why are you citing other threads to justify yourself here? Even if you're suggesting better behavior in the past it doesn't make what you're doing now okay.

What on earth does that have to do with the content of the actual papers from Gatto or Renfrow or anybody else? Would you please stop speaking nonsense?

It has to do with the fact you're insisting poor behavior today is okay because you have this idea that you did something good yesterday. Creating a double standard's not going to be okay because you argue you were better about how you posted in a previous time or somewhere else.
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
And on the point of actual data:

quote:

Conclusion

The question will inevitably, and rightly, be asked: what kind of historical entity is the "primary pastoral community"? Clearly it is inconceivable that communities throughout the entire length of the Nile Valley, a distance of c. 1800km, shared anything approaching a conscious social identity (e.g. of the sort that could be articulated in tribal or ethnic terms) during the fifth millennium BC. Instead, what came to be shared across this extensive region were the materials and practices including, and perhaps especially, modes of ritual practice out of which more local contrasts and group identities were constructed.


What data do we have from Naqada that shows modes of ritual were local variants of the same community?


quote:
It may be precisely the maintenance of local differences within a shared social milieu that gave rise simultaneously to such geographically expansive uniformities and, within them, to the kind of internal variations observed in ceramic assemblages and other traditional markers of archaeological "cultures" (cf. Gatto 2002; Kobusiewicz et al. 2010: 152 57).

What ceramic assemblages and what traditional markers connect Egypt and Sudan together? Especially with respect to Naqada?


quote:

We conclude by emphasising that our definition of a "primary pastoral community" in the Nile Valley is a holistic one, giving equal weight to empirically observable uniformities in ritual practice, material culture and ecology. As such it stands in contrast to the recent and narrower focus on environmental stress as a long-term driver of cultural change in north-east Africa. It seems important to insist on this methodological distinction, not least because such recent catastrophes as the genocide in Darfur have been linked to what are supposedly millennia-old cycles of climate-driven demographic change (Kuper & Kroepelin 2006: 807). From an archaeological point of view we hope, at the very least, to have demonstrated that alternative interpretations of Africa’s deep past and hence of its more immediate future are not only possible, but also plausible.

This is conjecture, not data. Data is being able to show that remains of the material culture suggest what he's talking about. What examples of the material culture have you put forward in support of this view? You are demanding faith towards the conclusion because you have no data that would show this.
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
If you didn't READ the data how on earth are you claiming it wasn't provided? Are you paying attention?

You serious? You were asked what data supports the idea of the pastoral commuinity was at the root of Naqada culture and you didn't have an answer. If you cannot connect what he puts forward to the question, it's providing information but not data that can sufficiently support the conclusion Naqada was part of this pastoral community.

Dude. Will you stop trying to pretend to have something to say? I personally never said anything about pastoral traditions. It was Wenfrow. Why are you equating ME with Wenfrow? And what do you mean by DATA? The Wenfrow paper is DATA don't you think?

Stop being a pest. You are wasting my time seriously. If you are not actually going to discuss the actual DATA in terms of what Wenfrow or Gatto actually said in the references provided then stop replying to me. You really aren't saying anything. Who are you to DEMAND that anybody does work for you? What on earth do you think this is? If you want DATA then why don't YOU go get it? I am not your dam data fetcher.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
I still have yet to see you quote, cite or reference ANY PART of said data yet you keep going on and on about what I am doing. Why are you so concerned about what I am doing?

So you didn't hear the part where I asked you how Naqada is tied to the primary pastoral community? A term Wengrow discusses in his work? I read the paper, so what I was trying to see was what available data on Naqada connect to this community he speaks of? I will continue to review his work and others to see if this questioned is answered. Though I'm just surprised you don't have it because you took him for his word with no data to support the connection to Naqada but prior to that you posted a critique of taking Gatto for her word when Beyoku posted up.

If you read the paper you would see the connection because it was the scholar that wrote the paper who made the connection. This is why I don't understand how you can sit here and act like you are going to say there is no data, but the data has been provided, but instead of analyzing it yourself you ASK for more data. Why cant you make an analysis for yourself? Why are you asking other people to do the work for you?

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
The only thing I am DEMANDING is that you read the data that was provided and stop spouting off nonsense that has nothing to do with the ACTUAL data that was provided.

Naqada culture's connection to Sudan is irrelevant to his discussions of a primary pastoral community that stretches from Egypt and Sudan? How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?

Where did I say that? Why are you spending so much time talking ABOUT me and not addressing the data in the actual documents? You really have no point. But sure keep pretending you have something to say.

I posted an exact quote from the paper addressing your question and you haven't even addressed THAT yet you sit here acting like you are DEMANDING something. Who the hell do you think you are to be DEMANDING anything of anybody? Seriously?

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
How on earth are you going to sit here and have this long drag on discussion when it ADDED a link to the ACTUAL pdf with relevant information and you have NOT YET discussed any of said data?

Asking you what data on Naqada culture ties to his outline on the features of a primary pastoral tradition IS talking about his research.

Since I didn't write the paper and the paper speaks for itself, you should try READING it to see how the writer of the paper makes those connections.

At this point you are just stalling instead of doing what is required to understand what THOSE scholars are saying, because neither I nor anybody else on these forums wrote those papers. So YOU have to read them and make sense of what they are saying. It is not my job to do that for you. And I don't know why you seek to use this forum to do research and work you can do for yourself.

I am serious.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:I know what I said and I will say it again, the history of the Nile Valley has been broken up into phases based on POTTERY shards and to a lesser extent human remains. I already provided the DATA from Petrie and Reisner who came up with this naming system. I also said that "Nubia" was originally defined in terms of a "racial" group separate from the Nile Valley in what is now Egypt. But sure, lets pretend none of this matters to the discussion.

It doesn't. No one's talking about the fact you caution taking European scholars (or any scholars for that matter) at their opinions alone. The issue is that when it comes to scholars saying something you disagree with, only THEN it is time to focus on data. But when they say something you agree with, THEN you want to turn tail and get defensive about being asked what data supports their conclusions.

Nobody agrees with everybody on anything. So stop wasting time. The purpose of analysis is to find which scholars work supports the theories being provided. All scholars don't agree with Gatto and Wenfrow. You are seriously making no sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
Not to mention I provided UP TO DATE information on the study of the Nile Valley and Sudan and you have yet to read the data provided.

I asked you how Naqada culture ties to the primary pastoral community Wengrow talks about, you haven't provided data on the question. Instead you got defensive. This goes against how you treated Beyoku's source when discussing Gatto. Oh no then it was all about being skeptical about the opinions about researchers.

I provided the exact quote that covers it from Wenfrow. I don't understand how you did not understand what was said. That is your problem and honestly makes you look determined not to address the topic instead of stalling.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
And firstly it is not your place to tell me how I should view anybody or anything on any topic. You don't have to agree with me on it but don't tell me I can't have views and opinions of my own on things.

I'm telling you that you cannot make demands of others you won't follow through with yourself. You're not speshul. You can expect a response from me about it if you do it in MY thread. Don't like it? Leave then. Don't tell me I HAVE to treat you above everyone else. I am not going to do it. If you feel entitled to special treatment go elsewhere where you can get it.

I didn't demand anything. YOU did. YOU came here ASKING or DEMANDING others to do work for you that you can do for yourself. Are you seriously claiming you can't look up research on Naqada,Tasian and Badarian relationships for yourself? You make it seem like there aren't plenty of papers and plenty of research already taking place on those areas.

AND you make it seem like that it has not already been widely accepted that they ARE ancestral. I mean this is Egyptology 101. You really just are not doing ANY sort of research and have LIMITED knowledge of the subject yet you have been here how long? You can find these things yourself. YOU aren't special either. Meaning nobody is obligated to research anything for you that you can't do yourself.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

And on top of that I posted data from European authors for you to look at yet you sit here and pretend that I didn't. You are confused.
Egyptology as an institution and body of knowledge was founded by folks who in the past were very blatantly racist. I don't care if you don't like it but that is just a fact. The modern institution of Egyptology still maintains some of those views as it was founded on them. Doesn't mean all folks in Egyptology are bad or racist but some are and some of the views of Egyptology as a discipline can absolutely be considered racist. But don't sit here and pretend to tell me about what Europeans can and be called out on when the fact is that most European anthropology from the 1700s right to the 1970s was openly and blatantly racist.

No one's criticizing you acknowledgement of the history of racism in academia. What's being criticized is that you're using these types of issues to create a different standard for yourself compared to everyone else. Academic racism is not going to make it okay for you to rely solely on the opinions of a European scholar while telling others that it's insufficient to take the European scholars they present at their word.

The only standard I am demanding is that you read and analyze things for yourself and stop wasting time talking about everything BUT the topic. That is only fair. Otherwise you are wasting time and stalling. You have no place to demand anybody of anything when you are asking them to do things you can do for yourself.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You have yet to quote, cite or reference any SPECIFIC data from Gatto or Wengrow as to why you think THEIR DATA is lacking.

First of all, the question was directed to you and your reference of Wengrow. I was not talking to Beyoku about his reference of Gatto (not here at least). Second, in my noting a possible absence of data from the resource provided that needed clarity, I was referencing and discussing what I was given. You keep saying you don't think your source is lacking but don't have any way of connecting Naqada culture-- the main culture of predynastic Egypt to the primary pastoral community. This means you're just going along with what they're saying on the faith it's true because you hear something you like. Until you can show what data they have that would support that point, referencing their opinions will be insufficient in answering this question.

No. I am just posting scholarship that shows connections along the Nile Valley beyond Egypt and that all scholars aren't of the same mindset when it comes to that history. Faith has nothing to do with it.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
So again, the only conclusion I can come to is you are on a personal mission to tell me about HOW I should think about scholarship, history and "race" when the fact is it isn't your place to tell me ANYTHING about how I should view "race" or "racism". Do you get that?

It's my place to tell you that you're not going to demand higher standards of posting from others you won't abide by yourself. If you don't think it's my place to tell you you're not better than anybody else pack. the. hell. up. It's that simple: leave then because I'm not stopping.

Again. It is not your place to DEMAND anything from anybody especially me. You can sit here and pretend you have some "right" but you don't. Read the dam data. If you like it then fine. If you don't then fine. But stop whining and acting like somebody owes you something. Nobody OWES you a damn thing. Grow the hell up.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
What SPECIFIC data in Wengrow or Gatto do you have questions about because right now you have not mentioned NOTHING from either one of them yet you spout all this nonsense about data. Stop wasting my time.

So you didn't hear me ask what data ties the Naqada culture to the primary pastoral community? Several times? If you feel your time's being wasted go to another thread. Go on. shoo! [Roll Eyes]

Read the paper. And stop replying to me. You are playing childish games.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
I gave you references to scholars who wrote papers and provided data that you still have yet to read, reference or quote anywhere in this discussion as opposed to being on a personal crusade to tell me how I should think about "race" and "racism" in academia which is NOT your place. Do you understand the difference?

I don't care what you think about race as long as you don't use race as a pretense to demand better treatment than that of other posters. I read Wengrow, and asked what ties Naqada culture to the primary pastoral community. You had no data to discuss. If you did you'd have posted something by now. It's possible I may find something from Wengrow or other works later. But that is a measurement of my faith in the scholar, which you just said not to hold when it was Beyoku presenting Gatto. Again using racism as a pretense to get special treatment from what you put forward over everyone else.

Read the paper. Why are you asking me or Beyoku to answer what is in the paper. WHO do YOU think you are to open threads as if folks are OBLIGATED to DO ANYTHING for you? That is the problem. And when they provide something you sit here and pretend you have some RIGHT to DEMAND people do further research for you? Are you kidding?

Read the paper. The information you asked for is there.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
It is your thread but don't sit here and tell me that these threads are being created to lure people in so that you can LECTURE them about how they should view, discuss, believe, address or feel about any specific topic.

No one "lured you" to derail this thread and Beyoku's post to whine about Nubians. That had NOTHING to do with the topic which is why you caught heat in the first place. You imposed standards you won't follow and don't like people telling you they notice. WHO the hell asked you to waltz your A$$ up in here to LECTURE others about their sources, but then become a whiny diva when it's time for yout sources to be criticized the same way. If you don't like being treated like you're not better than Beyoku then prance the hell up out my thread.

Are you saying you open threads because you only want certain folks to reply? If that is the case then send a PM. Otherwise, this forum does not belong to you. It is open to all members to reply to topics created on it. You can't be serious as to pretend to try and act like you are "running people off" who you don't like or agree with.

If you don't like what i am saying why are you spending so much time replying to me?


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Again YOU should already be familiar with Gatto, Wengrow and other folks as they are the ones doing the work in the field. So why on earth are you sitting here acting like someone on this forum is really doing something "special" beyond what you could have done yourself. All this information is publicly on the internet.

How are you going to suggest I should be familiar with Gatto or Wengrow with respect to this question (like I shouldn't be asking this question because they exist) when you couldn't even answer how Sudan is connected to Naqada culture after all this time of you derailing threads to cry about the very idea of Nubia being a prop of intellectual racism? You couldn't even connect their works to the subject.

Stop kidding and read the papers and address that instead of talking nonsense. You are stalling and stalling and stalling not really doing anything.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Why are you not specifically talking about what Gatto ACTUALLY WROTE instead of telling me what I can and cannot think?

And who says I haven't discussed Gatto in PM? I don't have anything to gain asking you because you clearly aren't going to put any of her work towards answering the question you've been asked several times. You also made a point to nearly derail my thread complaining about her as source on some crap that's irrelevant to what I'm asking. Maybe I don't feel like dealing with that nonsense right now, so I summed up where I am with her work privately. I've got enough going on trying to see how the primary pastoral community ties with Naqada which if answered could provide a good deal of help in proving the Naqada culture was Sudanese in origin. Wengrow is getting more emphasis because his work suggests the origin for both the Naqada and the so-called Nubians can be placed in SUDAN. He responds to the claims that both Naqada and now even "Nubian" people are the result of wandering "Eurasian" people or culture. So why don't you answer my questions concerning what data backs Wengrow and his position on the primary pastoral? Because you can't after you made all those demands you made from Beyoku's source? Even if people do choose to have faith in your sources from time to time which I can attempt in this particular instance, what's wrong is you're acting as though everyone is obligated to hold enough faith in how correct your source's opinions are. You frequently shift burdens of proof so that you can be lazy with data.

I don't care what you PM'ed to anybody. I want to see where you actually READ the paper. Don't you get it. You sit her and pontificate as if somebody cares about your silly attitude. When I am just proving you have no interest in the data and your pathetic attempts to try and sit here and act like "authoritarian" on who can and cannot post data about Egypt is silly. So either address specific quotes and content from the papers or stop pretending you are concerned or interested in said data. Nowhere does Wenfrow say anything about "wandering Eurasians" being responsible for anything. He doesn't even use the term "nubian" in the paper AT ALL. So stop making up stuff. No wonder you are mad, because I am not playing dumb games with you

Here is WHAT ACTUALLY was said:
quote:

The overall number of dates for the Nile Valley in the fifth millennium BC remains relatively small, so any attempt to establish internal subdivisions or trends must remain tentative. On the basis of what is known, two observations can be made. The first is that the characteristic features of the ‘primary pastoral community’ may appear slightly earlier in the Sudanese than in the Egyptian part of the valley, suggesting a possible spread from south to north during the course of the fifth millennium. The second is that the Egyptian (‘Badarian’) extension of this cultural pattern so far produces radiocarbon dates that form an internally consistent group, suggesting a chronological range from roughly 4400 to 3800 BC, some two centuries longer than proposed by Hassan (1985, see also 1986) on the basis of a much smaller number of absolute dates. This in turn implies a later start-date for the Naqada I phase of Egyptian prehistory and an overall shortening of the ‘predynastic’ (Naqada I-II) to a period of roughly five centuries ( c . 3800–3300 BC; see Dee et al. 2013).

So where is "wandering Eurasians" in that?

Again, you have no place to tell me what to think or not think about anything.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:

quote:
Not to mention I posted extensive DATA about Gatto and others doing ACTUAL work in Egypt in this thread and ANOTHER thread of yours. So don't tell me about data.

I just want you to consider what you're saying for a second. Would failing to pay a mortgage or rent be acceptable because you paid it in the past? Would failing to feed a child because you did so the day before be acceptable? Does a minister get a pass for spending his money on abhorent things because he previously spent his money on good things? Why are you citing other threads to justify yourself here? Even if you're suggesting better behavior in the past it doesn't make what you're doing now okay.

What on earth does that have to do with the content of the actual papers from Gatto or Renfrow or anybody else? Would you please stop speaking nonsense?

It has to do with the fact you're insisting poor behavior today is okay because you have this idea that you did something good yesterday. Creating a double standard's not going to be okay because you argue you were better about how you posted in a previous time or somewhere else.
Read the paper. That is the only thing you are missing. And actually show me why Gatto and Wenfrow have NOT addressed the questions you asked. I believe they have but YOU have not shown that you have actually read the papers which makes your point totally invalid.
Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
And on the point of actual data:

quote:

Conclusion

The question will inevitably, and rightly, be asked: what kind of historical entity is the "primary pastoral community"? Clearly it is inconceivable that communities throughout the entire length of the Nile Valley, a distance of c. 1800km, shared anything approaching a conscious social identity (e.g. of the sort that could be articulated in tribal or ethnic terms) during the fifth millennium BC. Instead, what came to be shared across this extensive region were the materials and practices including, and perhaps especially, modes of ritual practice out of which more local contrasts and group identities were constructed.


What data do we have from Naqada that shows modes of ritual were local variants of the same community?


quote:
It may be precisely the maintenance of local differences within a shared social milieu that gave rise simultaneously to such geographically expansive uniformities and, within them, to the kind of internal variations observed in ceramic assemblages and other traditional markers of archaeological "cultures" (cf. Gatto 2002; Kobusiewicz et al. 2010: 152 57).

What ceramic assemblages and what traditional markers connect Egypt and Sudan together? Especially with respect to Naqada?


quote:

We conclude by emphasising that our definition of a "primary pastoral community" in the Nile Valley is a holistic one, giving equal weight to empirically observable uniformities in ritual practice, material culture and ecology. As such it stands in contrast to the recent and narrower focus on environmental stress as a long-term driver of cultural change in north-east Africa. It seems important to insist on this methodological distinction, not least because such recent catastrophes as the genocide in Darfur have been linked to what are supposedly millennia-old cycles of climate-driven demographic change (Kuper & Kroepelin 2006: 807). From an archaeological point of view we hope, at the very least, to have demonstrated that alternative interpretations of Africa’s deep past and hence of its more immediate future are not only possible, but also plausible.

This is conjecture, not data. Data is being able to show that remains of the material culture suggest what he's talking about. What examples of the material culture have you put forward in support of this view? You are demanding faith towards the conclusion because you have no data that would show this.

Come on dude. Did you not see the references in said paper? Your questions are more rightly addressed to the author of the paper and not me. The author has numerous references in the paper. I suggest your read them and see if that provides support for what the author is saying.

ALSO the KEY point here that you obviously missed is that these authors are backing away from terms like "Nubian" and "Badarian" because in some ways they impose artificial boundaries and identities that are not actually relevant for the time period being discussed. I don't know how you MISSED that, which was kind of the point I was making earlier about "Nubian" and goes to the heart of your question and why I keep pointing out that "Nubian" is not relevant when talking about cultures > 3,000 years ago. This is the purpose for creating the term "primary pastoral community" as a way of referencing the SHARED cultural patterns between all these groups. That also includes Tasian and Badarian as terms which imply boundaries and distinctions which are not necessarily helpful in understanding the overall pattern and evolution of cultures along the Nile.

The bigger issue being that it makes no sense to attach concepts like Nations, city states, "race" and other notions on these ancient populations at that point in time. Just like there was no France, Germany, Britain, Japan or China, neither was there a Nubia, Sudan or Egypt either. Pottery styles and other patterns of culture do not imply or impose those concepts either.

Sounds like to me you don't agree with the Author.

Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
If you didn't READ the data how on earth are you claiming it wasn't provided? Are you paying attention?

You serious? You were asked what data supports the idea of the pastoral commuinity was at the root of Naqada culture and you didn't have an answer. If you cannot connect what he puts forward to the question, it's providing information but not data that can sufficiently support the conclusion Naqada was part of this pastoral community.

Dude. Will you stop trying to pretend to have something to say? I personally never said anything about pastoral traditions. It was Wenfrow. Why are you equating ME with Wenfrow? And what do you mean by DATA? The Wenfrow paper is DATA don't you think? part of this pastoral community.

I'm equating you with your source because you quoted his mention of it, and insisting the existence of the pastoral community is pretty much the point of the entire paper. The Wenfrow paper in it's entirety is not data. Portions of the paper that put out radiocarbon dating from several sites in Egypt and Nubia is a better example of data.

quote:


Stop being a pest. You are wasting my time seriously. If you are not actually going to discuss the actual DATA in terms of what Wenfrow or Gatto actually said in the references provided then stop replying to me. You really aren't saying anything. Who are you to DEMAND that anybody does work for you? What on earth do you think this is? If you want DATA then why don't YOU go get it? I am not your dam data fetcher.



You should ask that of yourself, because when other people came here with other sources you had no problems demanding data over conjecture. You don't have to provide data to support any claims you make--they simply aren't very reputable without them. And I get to be especially mindful of this because you suggested we all abide by that standard to begin with.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
If you read the paper you would see the connection because it was the scholar that wrote the paper who made the connection.



You just told us not to take scholars at their word like Gatto when Beyoku presented it. You know the SCHOLARS AREN'T RAW DATA or you wouldn't have said that.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
This is why I don't understand how you can sit here and act like you are going to say there is no data, but the data has been provided, but instead of analyzing it yourself you ASK for more data. Why cant you make an analysis for yourself? Why are you asking other people to do the work for you?



Fool, because the burden of proof is on YOU for making the affirming position. This would be like whining to people who are skeptical pikachu exists. "why can't you go find the data he exists yourseeeeelf?" Ridiculous. You are affirming the existence, YOU are supposed to provide the data.


quote:

Since I didn't write the paper and the paper speaks for itself, you should try READING it to see how the writer of the paper makes those connections.



I did, and I had questions. More "have faith in a European author when it's ME presenting" crap. You cited the paper whether you wrote it or not. You're claiming the paper itself "data" and not specific things like the radicabon data which no on it's own does not place Naqada in the primary pastoral community. You don't have any answers or you'd have tied Naqada to this by now.


quote:


At this point you are just stalling instead of doing what is required to understand what THOSE scholars are saying, because neither I nor anybody else on these forums wrote those papers.



It's required for someone in the affirming position to provide data supporting the scholar--especially when the person has been on everyone else's @$$ for judging European scholars against data.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Nobody agrees with everybody on anything. So stop wasting time. The purpose of analysis is to find which scholars work supports the theories being provided. All scholars don't agree with Gatto and Wenfrow. You are seriously making no sense.

No, I said "proof" as in evidence...data. Not "scholars." I let the matter go when people provided scholars because I do try reading up works when I can, but you were talking down to other posters about "data" and mantaining skepticism of Europeans while complaining that people are lazy for not assuming the burden of proof on the negative position. Complaining that they need to have enough faith in you and your European sources "to find the data" that support your conclusions.


quote:

I didn't demand anything. YOU did. YOU came here ASKING or DEMANDING others to do work for you that you can do for yourself.



You were imposing demands. You were telling us to compare Gatto against information that goes against the idea of a Nubia when it was irrelevant to what I was talking about. But you don't want to have data on hand for your sources. And I asked others if they had information, that doesn't mean I haven't been looking. Nor are you, who has no data on the matter in any position to have anything to say about my deciding to ask. You've been complaining about the distinctions between Egypt and Nubia far longer than I have even grasped the nature of this debate.


quote:

Are you seriously claiming you can't look up research on Naqada,Tasian and Badarian relationships for yourself? You make it seem like there aren't plenty of papers and plenty of research already taking place on those areas.




Lol is that why you have no data despite all these years? Asking around to see if people have found data I haven't doesn't mean I haven't been looking. It doesn't mean I haven't been reading anything. You honestly don't even have the right to whine as you are considering you just started google searching about something so fundamental and still attempt to blur the lines between data and conjecture depending on whether a European scholar agrees or disagrees with you.

quote:

No. I am just posting scholarship that shows connections along the Nile Valley beyond Egypt and that all scholars aren't of the same mindset when it comes to that history. Faith has nothing to do with it.

If you could demonstrate how the scholarship connects the Nile beyond Egypt through use of data you'd have been able to do that by now. You are posting conjecture that agrees with your faith in a Sudanese origin for Egypt, which is the correct term to call your position because you have no data. You cherry pick European scholars to take at their word based on how closely their opinions match what gives you comfort to have faith in. When European scholars disagree then you begin talking about data.

quote:
Again. It is not your place to DEMAND anything from anybody especially me.

Keep whining about how you don't like being called on your double standards if you want to, I won't be listening. You can go if you don't like it. Shoo now!


quote:

Read the paper. And stop replying to me. You are playing childish games.

I did and this is my thread. Get the hell out of here if you don't want to be responded to.


quote:

Are you saying you open threads because you only want certain folks to reply?




If by certain people you mean the type of people who aren't going to derail and whine when called on demanding a different standard for themselves over everyone else. And why PM everyone who's not doing that when the only person I'm talking to right now is you?


quote:


If you don't like what i am saying why are you spending so much time replying to me?



Do you enjoy replying? You called me a pest and yet you're responding yourself. But of course when it's you doing this much responding it doesn't mean you have to like it. Again creating double standards for yourself and others. People MUST be so happy with seeing you derail their threads, demanding special treatment. Why else would they spend so much time saying they don't like it? [Roll Eyes]

quote:
I don't care what you PM'ed to anybody. I want to see where you actually READ the paper.

I asked you a question on the primary pastoral concerning data. I couldn't have asked that question without reading, here we go again.

quote:

Here is WHAT ACTUALLY was said:
[QUOTE]
The overall number of dates for the Nile Valley in the fifth millennium BC remains relatively small, so any attempt to establish internal subdivisions or trends must remain tentative. On the basis of what is known, two observations can be made. The first is that the characteristic features of the ‘primary pastoral community’ may appear slightly earlier in the Sudanese than in the Egyptian part of the valley, suggesting a possible spread from south to north during the course of the fifth millennium. The second is that the Egyptian (‘Badarian’) extension of this cultural pattern so far produces radiocarbon dates that form an internally consistent group, suggesting a chronological range from roughly 4400 to 3800 BC, some two centuries longer than proposed by Hassan (1985, see also 1986) on the basis of a much smaller number of absolute dates. This in turn implies a later start-date for the Naqada I phase of Egyptian prehistory and an overall shortening of the ‘predynastic’ (Naqada I-II) to a period of roughly five centuries ( c . 3800–3300 BC; see Dee et al. 2013).

So where is "wandering Eurasians" in that?
I wasn't saying he attributed anything to wandering Eurasians. I was saying that if the data can be found to support his views it would crush any theories trying to attribute both Egypt and Nubia to Eurasia. And my questions still remain


quote:

Read the paper. That is the only thing you are missing. And actually show me why Gatto and Wenfrow have NOT addressed the questions you asked. I believe they have but YOU have not shown that you have actually read the papers which makes your point totally invalid.

Shifting burdens of proof. I don't have to show you the absence of data. The most I can do is ask for evidence to a claim which I did. The affirming position provides evidence that affirms. That's on you, and you cannot do it. That's fine, but you shouldn't have came at others how you did if you don't have data to support your views. I'll continue researching Wengrow and Gatto myself. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Come on dude. Did you not see the references in said paper? Your questions are more rightly addressed to the author of the paper and not me. The author has numerous references in the paper. I suggest your read them and see if that provides support for what the author is saying.
[/QB]

The question is rightly addressed to you, because you are the one that posted this guys material in support of Egypt being part of Sudan. It's rightly addressed to you because you should have some evidence even if not with the author that connects Naqada to Sudan. You've been arguing this for years to the extent you nearly derailed my thread to have no data that connects the two.


quote:
ALSO the KEY point here that you obviously missed is that these authors are backing away from terms like "Nubian" and "Badarian" because in some ways they impose artificial boundaries and identities that are not actually relevant for the time period being discussed.

No he's not refuting the labels at all.

quote:

The question will inevitably, and rightly, be asked: what kind of historical entity is the
‘primary pastoral community’? Clearly it is inconceivable that communities throughout
the entire length of the Nile Valley, a distance of c. 1800km, shared anything approaching a
conscious social identity (e.g. of the sort that could be articulated in tribal or ethnic terms)
during the fifth millennium BC.
Instead, what came to be shared across this extensive
region were the materials and practices—including, and perhaps especially, modes of ritual
practice—out of which more local contrasts and group identities were constructed.

The author isn't saying that different cultures and eras that Egyptologists ascribed labels are irrelevant. Simply that the differing cultures were local variation of the same community.


quote:


This is the purpose for creating the term "primary pastoral community" as a way of referencing the SHARED cultural patterns between all these groups. That also includes Tasian and Badarian as terms which imply boundaries and distinctions which are not necessarily helpful in understanding the overall pattern and evolution of cultures along the Nile.

And you were also asked what proves that Tasian and Badarian were ancestral to Naqada? If Tasian and Badarian are to be seen as a different phase of a same localized group of people then what evidence suggests this?

quote:

Sounds like to me you don't agree with the Author.

I'm just doing what you said and not taking him at his word lol.
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Come on dude. Did you not see the references in said paper? Your questions are more rightly addressed to the author of the paper and not me. The author has numerous references in the paper. I suggest your read them and see if that provides support for what the author is saying.

The question is rightly addressed to you, because you are the one that posted this guys material in support of Egypt being part of Sudan. It's rightly addressed to you because you should have some evidence even if not with the author that connects Naqada to Sudan. You've been arguing this for years to the extent you nearly derailed my thread to have no data that connects the two.


quote:
ALSO the KEY point here that you obviously missed is that these authors are backing away from terms like "Nubian" and "Badarian" because in some ways they impose artificial boundaries and identities that are not actually relevant for the time period being discussed.

No he's not refuting the labels at all.

quote:

The question will inevitably, and rightly, be asked: what kind of historical entity is the
‘primary pastoral community’? Clearly it is inconceivable that communities throughout
the entire length of the Nile Valley, a distance of c. 1800km, shared anything approaching a
conscious social identity (e.g. of the sort that could be articulated in tribal or ethnic terms)
during the fifth millennium BC.
Instead, what came to be shared across this extensive
region were the materials and practices—including, and perhaps especially, modes of ritual
practice—out of which more local contrasts and group identities were constructed.

The author isn't saying that different cultures and eras that Egyptologists ascribed labels are irrelevant. Simply that the differing cultures were local variation of the same community.

Which means it is different to how the previous authors defined these cultures and relationships to one another. And therefore, that understanding of relationships is irrelevant which also means the underlying way these terms are defined is flawed because originally these were seen as separate and distinct entities. But that has never been universally accepted to begin with. So in that sense those terms are absolutely irrelevant in trying to understanding how and where culture emerged along the Nile Valley and the ACTUAL relationship between the various groups.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:


This is the purpose for creating the term "primary pastoral community" as a way of referencing the SHARED cultural patterns between all these groups. That also includes Tasian and Badarian as terms which imply boundaries and distinctions which are not necessarily helpful in understanding the overall pattern and evolution of cultures along the Nile.

And you were also asked what proves that Tasian and Badarian were ancestral to Naqada? If Tasian and Badarian are to be seen as a different phase of a same localized group of people then what evidence suggests this?

Who said they were ancestral? Where did you get that from. Nobody I have read says that. They are chronologically older in terms of the overall history of the Nile Valley but I don't see anybody calling them "ancestral" to Naqada. In fact many scholars don't even consider them valid as entities at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

Sounds like to me you don't agree with the Author.

I'm just doing what you said and not taking him at his word lol.
OK. I see where the confusion is.

In terms of an absolute chronology of the Nile Valley in what later became Dynastic KMT, the Tasian and Badarian along with Naqada are seen as earlier phases of culture and evidence of settlement and human activity chronologically preceding the emergence of the actual Nation of Egypt. That is standard Egyptology 101. However, that does not mean that in terms of relationships between these entities that one is "ancestral" to the other.

The problem is that the terms "Badarian" and "Tasian" are not equivalent to "nations", "city states" and well defined "cultures" as in how people see those things today. These names were created based primarily on styles of pottery. I already addressed ALL of this in my previous post. Naqada, Badarian and Tasian are not "races", "ethnic identities", "cultures" and "city states". We today cannot say exactly what these groupings of pottery represent in terms of how these people identified with each other and how they identified themselves in terms of cultural or ethnic identity. That is why some folks are moving away from said terms because they impose identities and boundaries that do not necessarily reflect the actual social and ethnic organization of the people at the time.

This is why the relationship between these three "archaeological terms" has been seen as inconclusive which is why some scholars are creating NEW TERMS to address a more wholistic pattern of relationships between these groups instead of just going on localized burial patterns and objects.

The reason the exact relationship between the Badarian, Tasian and Naqada are debated is because of disputed dating of the artifacts belonging to the Badarian/Tasian and the similarities in style between the three cultures not showing overlap.

Again this is why some scholars are moving away from such terms as absolute references to the chronology of the Nile Valley predynastic.

But today as it stands, Badarian and Tasian along with Naqada are well known and defined terms within Egyptology as being part of the predynastic of the Egyptian Nile Valley as a whole. Albeit the relationship between them is still debated.


https://books.google.com/books?id=9En6tzUJCXkC&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=badarian+tasian&source=bl&ots=KxKMJTKKmF&sig=urUdaOckRMihuIWnT44puJ-4rXw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4r93F0cPYAhUFme AKHXQiDDkQ6AEIhAEwFA#v=onepage&q=badarian%20tasian&f=false


Again, I suggest you do a search for "badarian tasian" or "badarian" or "badarian naqada" and "tasian naqada". There is plenty of information you can get from a simple google search. And I have yet to see anybody use the term "ancestral" when it comes to badarian and tasian for Naqada. They do say things like "contemporary" or "older" but not "ancestral".

Again, the common theme arising from many of these studies is that the material culture of all these early phases shows a strong relationship with cultures further South in what is now Sudan.

https://books.google.com/books?id=AWSGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=badarian+tasian&source=bl&ots=zfAiB5rtV0&sig=r3oKd6CPuYcixoLYqtNallLM0cQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4r93F0cPYAhUFme AKHXQiDDkQ6AEIjQEwFg#v=onepage&q=badarian%20tasian&f=false


quote:

The presence of Black-topped pottery as part of a larger ceramic complex that shares general features is important. This is first because this combination of features represents broad changes in technology, which will be discussed in detail below, and second because this complex, although referred to by a variety of cultural names, including Badarian, Tasian and A-Group, appears to be a widespread phenomenon. Broadly defined, this ceramic complex includes Black-topped pottery, Ripple-ware and tulip-shaped vessels, together or in conjunction with other vessels that fall within the more general Red/Brown, Qussier Clastic
and Olive wares (as described in Nelson 2002b). The extent of this complex includes the Nabta Playa area (Nelson 2002a), the adjacent Gebel Ramlah (Kobusiewicz et al. 2004),
Dakhleh Oasis (in the culture described as Bashendi B in McDonald 2002), Kukur Oasis
(Darnell and Darnell 2006), as far east as the Eastern Desert at Wadi Atulla (Friedman and
Hobbs 2002), southwards to Khartoum (see, for example, Arkell 1949, pls. 91–100) and
beyond. This ceramic complex replaces the rocker-stamped and impressed wares that were
also widespread. It is not possible within the scope of this paper to discuss all of the details of the distribution and variability of this new ceramic complex. Regardless, it is necessary to understand the broader changes that led to this transformation in pottery and to consider this transition within the larger context of the formation of cultures in southern Egypt and northern Sudan.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/PDF/Nelson%20Khalifa.pdf

The overall trend is tending towards evidence that evidence for complex human settlements moves further South as you go back in time which is where many of the precursors of the later Nile Valley civilization seems to have emerged.

So in terms of the "big picture" some scholars see a pattern of early pastoralism, pottery making and other complex forms of human development taking place in the Upper Nile into what is now Sudan and Sahara and gradually moving North where it later adopted characteristics of the Neolithic coming out of the Near East to produce the foundation of what we call Dynastic Egypt. The difference being that previously some folks thought they would find "stepping stones" of culture solely within Egypt among the various sites and cemeteries that would be "ancestral" to one another showing a pattern of one group or culture leading to the next until Egypt formed its civilization. But that pattern does not exist the way it was once implied.

Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Who said they [Badarians] were ancestral? Where did you get that from. Nobody I have read says that. They are chronologically older in terms of the overall history of the Nile Valley but I don't see anybody calling them "ancestral" to Naqada. In fact many scholars don't even consider them valid as entities at all.

But then that's picking and choosing again when the opinions of scholars matter. You just said that artificial boundaries suggested by breaking up the Nile by time, ethnicity or geographic area (terms like Naqada, Nubian, etc) is wrong. So if we're looking at the Badarians without a concept of ethnic division to others living along the Nile, it'd be reasonable to assume them to be ancestors the way a Yoruba is ancestral.


quote:



The problem is that the terms "Badarian" and "Tasian" are not equivalent to "nations", "city states" and well defined "cultures" as in how people see those things today. These names were created based primarily on styles of pottery. I already addressed ALL of this in my previous post. Naqada, Badarian and Tasian are not "races", "ethnic identities", "cultures" and "city states". We today cannot say exactly what these groupings of pottery represent in terms of how these people identified with each other and how they identified themselves in terms of cultural or ethnic identity. That is why some folks are moving away from said terms because they impose identities and boundaries that do not necessarily reflect the actual social and ethnic organization of the people at the time.





Why trek back to that? Asking for proof of a connection between the three isn't the same as suggesting I'm sold on the idea in the first place. In fact it would suggest a willingness to consider it isn't. So I said to to forgo the whole issue Tasian/Badarian thing and to explain how important Naqada communities tied it to the primary pastoral community since I do understand that a lot of people don't believe the two to be directly connected to Naqada at all.


quote:

The presence of Black-topped pottery as part of a larger ceramic complex that shares general features is important. This is first because this combination of features represents broad changes in technology, which will be discussed in detail below, and second because this complex, although referred to by a variety of cultural names, including Badarian, Tasian and A-Group, appears to be a widespread phenomenon. Broadly defined, this ceramic complex includes Black-topped pottery, Ripple-ware and tulip-shaped vessels, together or in conjunction with other vessels that fall within the more general Red/Brown, Qussier Clastic
and Olive wares (as described in Nelson 2002b). The extent of this complex includes the Nabta Playa area (Nelson 2002a), the adjacent Gebel Ramlah (Kobusiewicz et al. 2004),
Dakhleh Oasis (in the culture described as Bashendi B in McDonald 2002), Kukur Oasis
(Darnell and Darnell 2006), as far east as the Eastern Desert at Wadi Atulla (Friedman and
Hobbs 2002), southwards to Khartoum (see, for example, Arkell 1949, pls. 91–100) and
beyond. This ceramic complex replaces the rocker-stamped and impressed wares that were
also widespread. It is not possible within the scope of this paper to discuss all of the details of the distribution and variability of this new ceramic complex. Regardless, it is necessary to understand the broader changes that led to this transformation in pottery and to consider this transition within the larger context of the formation of cultures in southern Egypt and northern Sudan.

So this is suggesting Upper Egypt's connection to Sudan through widespread ceramic similarity?
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Who said they [Badarians] were ancestral? Where did you get that from. Nobody I have read says that. They are chronologically older in terms of the overall history of the Nile Valley but I don't see anybody calling them "ancestral" to Naqada. In fact many scholars don't even consider them valid as entities at all.

But then that's picking and choosing again when the opinions of scholars matter. You just said that artificial boundaries suggested by breaking up the Nile by time, ethnicity or geographic area (terms like Naqada, Nubian, etc) is wrong. So if we're looking at the Badarians without a concept of ethnic division to others living along the Nile, it'd be reasonable to assume them to be ancestors the way a Yoruba is ancestral.

These terms are made up by scholars. And not everybody agrees with them. At the end of the day nobody knows all the names ancient populations used for each other so archaeologists create terms of reference to identify certain patterns of culture as found in artifacts at different time.

I am not saying that making up such terms by itself is bad. What I am saying is that some of the terms currently in use are not an accurate picture of ethnic groups, cultures and identities of populations in this area at that time.

Again, I have personally not found any references that say the Badarian and Tasian are directly "ancestral" to the Naqada. The term "ancestral" does not just mean older. It also means having a direct conection in terms of pottery styles and other cultural elements that can be found via excavated artifacts.

Therefore, if you FEEL that they should be ancestral then it is up to YOU to find the scholars and evidence to support it. I haven't.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:



The problem is that the terms "Badarian" and "Tasian" are not equivalent to "nations", "city states" and well defined "cultures" as in how people see those things today. These names were created based primarily on styles of pottery. I already addressed ALL of this in my previous post. Naqada, Badarian and Tasian are not "races", "ethnic identities", "cultures" and "city states". We today cannot say exactly what these groupings of pottery represent in terms of how these people identified with each other and how they identified themselves in terms of cultural or ethnic identity. That is why some folks are moving away from said terms because they impose identities and boundaries that do not necessarily reflect the actual social and ethnic organization of the people at the time.





Why trek back to that? Asking for proof of a connection between the three isn't the same as suggesting I'm sold on the idea in the first place. In fact it would suggest a willingness to consider it isn't. So I said to to forgo the whole issue Tasian/Badarian thing and to explain how important Naqada communities tied it to the primary pastoral community since I do understand that a lot of people don't believe the two to be directly connected to Naqada at all.

OK. So as I said I haven't seen it in my searches on it. Therefore good luck to you in finding it in your own research.

I don't see a strong case that there was ever strong evidence to support such a concept.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

The presence of Black-topped pottery as part of a larger ceramic complex that shares general features is important. This is first because this combination of features represents broad changes in technology, which will be discussed in detail below, and second because this complex, although referred to by a variety of cultural names, including Badarian, Tasian and A-Group, appears to be a widespread phenomenon. Broadly defined, this ceramic complex includes Black-topped pottery, Ripple-ware and tulip-shaped vessels, together or in conjunction with other vessels that fall within the more general Red/Brown, Qussier Clastic
and Olive wares (as described in Nelson 2002b). The extent of this complex includes the Nabta Playa area (Nelson 2002a), the adjacent Gebel Ramlah (Kobusiewicz et al. 2004),
Dakhleh Oasis (in the culture described as Bashendi B in McDonald 2002), Kukur Oasis
(Darnell and Darnell 2006), as far east as the Eastern Desert at Wadi Atulla (Friedman and
Hobbs 2002), southwards to Khartoum (see, for example, Arkell 1949, pls. 91–100) and
beyond. This ceramic complex replaces the rocker-stamped and impressed wares that were
also widespread. It is not possible within the scope of this paper to discuss all of the details of the distribution and variability of this new ceramic complex. Regardless, it is necessary to understand the broader changes that led to this transformation in pottery and to consider this transition within the larger context of the formation of cultures in southern Egypt and northern Sudan.

So this is suggesting Upper Egypt's connection to Sudan through widespread ceramic similarity?
Yes.
Posts: 7246 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 4 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

What evidence suggests that the Tasian or Badarians are ancestral to the Naqada culture? I've read Egyptologists refer to it, but it doesn't seem like they're very certain the relationship. Some may argue they're an ancestral people, but what evidence implies this against the contrary?

First and foremost, Badarian and Naqada are the names of the material cultures NOT the physical peoples themselves. There is still debate as to whether Tasian culture is a seperate culture from Badarian while there are differences, the similarities are great enough that most scholars consider Tasian to be part of the Badarian material tradition. Naqada on the other hand was entirely different which is why most scholars consider Naqada to be a completely different culture from Badarian. Certain aspects of Badarian were adopted by Naqada such as cosmetic palettes, combs, and certain beadwork that one can argue ascpects of Badarian were ancestral to Naqada, however the overall styles of pottery and forms of burial were different enough to suggest entirely different cultures. For example, Naqada pottery had more decorations and artistic motifs such as animals and the sacred barque. There were female figurines with the arched arms, and instead of the circular graves with the heads of the bodies oriented west, the graves were rectangular with the heads oriented south. More recent evidence indicates that Naqada originated in the Eastern Desert where the same artistic motifs are found etched in rocks along with falcon symbols of Heru (Horus).

As far as physical differences, from what I recall there was little difference between Badarian and Naqada remains except that Badarians had relatively broader noses and more prognathic jaws compared to Naqadans who had narrower noses and orthognathic jaws.

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 23532 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
First and foremost, Badarian and Naqada are the names of the material cultures NOT the physical peoples themselves. There is still debate as to whether Tasian culture is a seperate culture from Badarian while there are differences, the similarities are great enough that most scholars consider Tasian to be part of the Badarian material tradition. Naqada on the other hand was entirely different which is why most scholars consider Naqada to be a completely different culture from Badarian.

If no scholars are arguing Badarian to be ancestors, I wonder how Zahi Hawaas had got the idea to author a book making those claims. He said (but cited no sources):

quote:
"The Badarian culture showed a variation in sizes and quality of grave goods, which implies greater social stratification. Around 4000 BC the Badarian culture developed into the Naqada culture, the third phase of which is identified as Dynasty 0, when there was a concerted movement from south to north to unite the country"
I wondered if there was data lying around to show how he arrived to that idea.


quote:
More recent evidence indicates that Naqada originated in the Eastern Desert where the same artistic motifs are found etched in rocks along with falcon symbols of Heru (Horus).
Do you have the source on the specific site?
Posts: 1690 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

If no scholars are arguing Badarian to be ancestors, I wonder how Zahi Hawaas had got the idea to author a book making those claims. He said (but cited no sources):


quote:
"The Badarian culture showed a variation in sizes and quality of grave goods, which implies greater social stratification. Around 4000 BC the Badarian culture developed into the Naqada culture, the third phase of which is identified as Dynasty 0, when there was a concerted movement from south to north to unite the country"
I wondered if there was data lying around to show how he arrived to that idea.
I think you're confused. The Badarian Culture which is the Neolithic culture of Upper Egypt IS ancestral dynatic Egyptians and so is Naqada. The latter succeeded the former though more so through syncretism rather than a complete replacement.

quote:
Do you have the source on the specific site?
Actually there are multiple sites in the Eastern Desert. The only one I can think of at the moment is Wadi Hamammat. I suggest you look up the Eastern Desert Survey as a good source.

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 23532 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3