Dennis wrote
> Okay John,
> I've been checking out all your references to cultural movements
and, relying very heavily on Enc.Britt. I still see no reason to
dismiss the Ethiopian/East African origin of AfroAsiatic. In this
post
I'll confine myself to the cultural progression as I see it, and
leave
the linguistic consequences to later, other than the positing of the
Ethiopian source of AfroAsiatic since to me it is more linguistically
feasible.
Agreed. Linguistically Ethiopia (on the basis of its Afro-Asiatic
linguistic diversity) is a good candidate for A-A dispersion, the
Urheimat. But I believe that this is principally due to the fact
that
a better Urheimat - the Sahara - has been removed from consideration,
as a result of paleo-climatic changes. For instance a parallel case
is made by some (I believe discredited) linguists, who argued because
of the Austronesian diversity of Melanesia it was the urheimat of An,
rather than southern China (from which An languages today are
extinct). We know that this is not the case.
Dennis
> You start with the Aterian culture ca.30,000BCE. First I would note
>that EB states that these people were _among_ the first to use the
>bow and arrow, and not necessarily the inventors, if any one culture
>could claim that distinction. It also states that the few human
>remains associated with this culture (EB uses the word "industry")
>are neanderthaloid.
Dennis - EB state "among" - but there are no finds of bow and arrow
anywhere else that are as early. Bows and arrows only appear in
Europe after 10,000 BCE, and in the middle East after 12-15,000 BCE.
They appear to have had an independent origin 15,000 BCE in Arctic
East Asia with the people who moved across Berengia into America. The
few human remains with the Aterian are not neanderthaloid - there are
no neanderthaloids in north Africa at any period, they were confined
to Europe, and completely disappeared with the coming of Aurignacian
cultures there 40-35,000 years BCE. The last known Neanderthaloids
were in Spain 28,000 BCE. What was "neanderthaloid" was the
pre-Aterian lithic tradition (EB is right - "industry") which is
often
mistakenly called Mousterian. In actual fact, the nearest true
Mousterian to the Aterian culture was at Kuta Fateh (? I may have the
spelling wrong) in Cyrenica.
There is currently a huge re-evaluation of African lithic traditions
underway, now that it is known that the Sangoan and Fauresmith
cultures (previously seen as backward Acheulian tool making
traditions), were in fact the result of Homo sapien sapiens. It is
now realised that in most of Africa, tool making went into a
microlithic tradition straight from the hand axes, without going
through the intermediary, found in Europe of the Upper Paleolithic
blades, with specialised tool kits, found in the Aurignacian. This
seems to suggest that the "Big Game Hunter" specialisation found in
the last ice age (culminating in Gravetian and Magdaleinian in
Eurasia) was almost wholly absent, and that Africa went much earlier
into the mesolithic than did Europe or the Middle East, complete with
a "broad spectrum revolution" in a sophisticated exploitation of a
wide variety of food sources.
> So, we come to the Wurm Glacial period, corresponding to the
Gamblian Pluvial in East Africa.
Dennis, the term Wurm (Like Riss, Mendel and the old 4 stage
glaciation theory) is no longer used in Paleoclimatic circles. The
association of ice ages with African Pluvials also has been
disproven.
In fact, Ice Ages seem to have been associated with periods of
exceptional aridity - rain forests were reduced to refugaria, and the
Sahara expanded to its maximum known extent.
Dennis
>This period lasted some 20,000 years.
>It seems to me that the desert would have grown outward from (a)
>source(s) in the interior of North Africa. By the time it reached
the
>coastal areas, the people there would have been cut off from any
>retreat to the south. It also strikes me that any remnant people,
>caught between the expanded Saharan desert and the icy
Mediterranean,
>would not be in any position after 20,000 years to create a new
>culture when the climate improved.
Firstly the arid period (associated with the maximum glacial advance
of 18,000 BCE) only lasted for a short period. From 16,000 BCE
glaciers were well in retreat and rains returned to the Sahara (This
was the period where the Cordilleran coridor was opened between the
Rockies glaciers and the Laurentide eventually allowing paleo-Archaic
Amerindians into North America)
Secondly, the Mediterranean was never "icy". Morocco probably had
the
climate of Southern France. It had managed to maintain a
biodiversity
unlike anything in Europe or the Sahara, and was eminently placed for
cultural experimentation. Thus we find Aterian to Oranian to
Ibero-Maurasian to Capsian, all very distinct with quite different
assemblages, but all clearly in an evolutionary sequence from the
same
cultural grouping. And Capsian leads into neolithic and early bronze
age cultures - going right through to Ancient Egypt.
Dennis
> So, in respect of the Sahara, I think we start in 10,000BCE with a
tabula rasa.
John
Far from it, the Sahara was a tabula rasa 18,000 BCE (after the
disappearance of the Aterian derived peoples), but by 10,000 BCE it
was filled with game and hunter gatherers. Rivers ran and inland
seas
were large. Paintings show hunters swimming!
Dennis
> Firstly, then, we have the Ibero-Maurusian industry which in my
sources (Enc.Brit. and Library of Congress) predates the Capsian.
Where did this come from?
John - it was derived from the Oranian - a culture intermediate to
Aterian survivals and the later Capsian.
Dennis wrote
>Quite possibly from a population who had
>weathered the Ice Age behind the Atlas Mountains and the Pyrenees.
It
>seems little is known about them and they were soon overtaken by the
>Capsian industry.
They did weather the Ice Age aridity behind the Atlas, but not the
Pyrenees. In fact there is a great deal known about the Oranian
assemblages, much of it brought to light from archaeological
expeditions accompanying the geologists drilling for oil.
Dennus asked rhetorically
> Where did the people of the Capsian industry come from?
He answers
>It seems most likely from the homines sapientes sapientes of East
>Africa, who would have continued to advance their techniques and
>increase their numbers throughout the favourable Gamblian Pluvial
>period, and with the change of climate (wetter in the Sahara and
>drier in east Africa) spread out in all directions, to the south,
the
>west and north arriving in north-west Africa ca.8000BCE. Their
>industry and art is found throughout the Sahara, and Kenya and
>Southern Africa.
You are here going against the modern archaeological construction of
African pre-history. Dennis, Hss had spread from East Africa to
North
West Africa much much earlier than this. They were in Palestine at
least from 90,000 years ago, and had probably replaced Archaic Hs at
least between 90-100,000 BCE. The industry and art that you speak of
from 8,000 BCE (and in fact earlier, which shows connection with the
other African microlithic traditions) is of Khoisanid cultures. They
show clear continuity with Khoikhoi (Hottentot) and San (Bushmen).
Unless you are arguing that A-A derived from the click languages of
these people, you have the archaeology all wrong.
Dennis wrote
> Pottery and cattle-herding.
> As you say, these seem to have been the inventions of the Capsian
> period. Some of the oldest fired pottery however has been found in
> the Nile valley around Khartoum, and is similar in design to that
> found in Kenya (Gamble's Cave). So, it seems quite likely that
> pottery was carried north down the Nile valley as well as into the
>
Sahara.
Yes to the first, no to the second. Yes the Khartoumi pottery is
very
old, but not as old as the Saharan. It is also older than the Gamble
Cave. In fact the earliest finds of pottery are in the western
Sahara. It spread to the Sudan, and from there to Kenya and to
southern Egypt (via the Western Oases). Have a look at the recent
Times Atlas of the World, it has an excellent map of the spread of
pooery cultures around the world that illustrates the movement very
well!
>As for cattle-herding, the ancient Egyptians were a cattle people,
>like the present-day Beja and Shilluk of the eastern desert. This is
>shown in hieroglyphics and in the language, where women, princesses
>of the royal line etc. are often referred to by terms that
originally
>denoted cows.
You are absolutely correct. Geneticists are currently working to see
if ancient Egyptian cattle are descendent from the Eurasian auroch
domestication or the African domestication. Current results are
contradictory... It seems some results show a Near Eastern origin,
others show African. It may be that Egypt was where the two strains
met and mingled.
> Obviously, emmer and einkorn wheat must have been brought from the
>north-east (Levant). But how far did this agriculture penetrate the
>Nile valley before the drainage works of the Old Kingdom? During the
>wet phase, the Nile floods were probably greater in extent, and the
>Fayyum would have been one big swamp, so it's probable that Middle
>Eastern people only touched on the fringes of the eastern delta, and
>the low marshy swamps to the west would have discouraged immigration
>from that quarter.
Dennis, this is contradicted by the clear presence of very old
Semitic
loan words in Ancient Egyptian. Nile flooding and swamps there may
have been, but to an ovicaproid pastoralist, the swamps are no
burden,
they just move down the valley parallel to the Nile for as far as
they
can go. This route (incl Wadi Tumalit and the other Eastern Desert
Wadis that would have been wetter - providing good wateringholes and
lusher pastures at this period) was no barrier.
>So, the main avenue for the peopling of the Nile valley would have
>been from the south, from Equatorial Africa.
No - sorry. The clearest evidence shows the peopleing of the Nile
Valley was from the Sahara. People continually moving in during the
arid phases, and staying in the Nile during the following improving
wet. New cultures coming from North Africa would move out onto the
Sahara in the wet, and would move again into the Nile Valley during
the dry that followed. The pattern continues down to historical
times. Thus the Dynasty 18 Shayu were followed by the Dynasty 19
Meshwesh (Maxyes) and the Dynasty 20-21 Libu (Libyans), all moving
out
from the west and trying to settle in the Nile Valley.
>This seems to be borne out by Herodotos' descriptions of Egyptians
>even in his time, as black with woolly hair.
This was after Tarqha's Nubian dynasty. Nubians had come to Egypt as
the governing elite prior to the Assyrian invasion under Esarhaddon.
Prior to that, during the Egytpian Empire large numbers of Nubians
were introduced as War Captives. You know, as do I that the
Egyptians
from the Old Kingdom on were not "black". Men were coloured orange-
red and women (kept indoors) were yellow-white. Skeletally they were
what is called "Eurafrican" and "Mediterranean".
> At Deir Tasari and al-Badari, on the eastern bank of the middle
>Nile, these early Egyptians must have met up with the new
>agricultural technology moving up the Nile. But, this doesn't imply
>major population movements.
Agreed. Badarian, seems almost wholly indigenous with little near
eastern influence.
> What evidence do you have for Asiatic elements in Naqadah I and II?
Heaps. The Gebel Arak knife, cylendar seals, crenellation of temple
walls, high prowed boats, styles of dress, animal styles on palattes,
the introduction of the war mace, boule for accounting purposes....
the list goes on and on.
>They would appear to be developments of the earlier Badari. And who
>are these "Dynastic people"? The origin of the earliest dynasties
can
>clearly be traced to Nubian "A" group. Finds at Qostul, cemetery "L"
>in Nubia would appear to confirm this, in particular the remains of
a
>cylindrical censer showing a king, sitting in a "royal" boat (high
>prowed) wearing what appears to be the long white crown of Upper
>Egypt. In front of him, the royal banner and the hawk-god Horus.
The Qostul cemetry is too late for the "Dynastic Race" Dennis. The
entry point of the Dynastic Race with their high prowed boats is
clearly shown through the Eastern Desert Wadis.
>There is also a palace(?) wall reminiscent of the funeral house of
>Zoser (3rd dynasty). There are also some indecipherable signs - the
>precursors of hieroglyphics?
No, copies of hieroglyphs
Dennis again
> Like you with the Sumerians, I tend to believe the Egyptians'
>accounts of their origins, and they clearly saw themselves as coming
>from the south "Ta Neter" "the land of the gods". The Egyptian word
>for "king" "nsw" can probably be derived from "n y swt" "man of the
>south", and the words for west/right and east/left show that they
>oriented themselves to the south, their origin. The text on the
>pyramid of Unas seems also to recall the storms of Equatorial Africa
Storms in Unas's pyramid, Dennis. News to me - I thought it shows
that the Nile was reduced to a trickle. Mass famine resulted, people
are shown with distended malnourished and ribs clearly shown.
I tend to believe the Egyptians too about their origins. They spoke
of Punt - which is commonly assumed to be Somalia. The royal "beard"
as shown on Tutrankhamon's gold mask was from earliest times
described
as "Puntite". At that time Somalia was inhabited by Capoid
Khoisanian
peoples - as the expedition of Hatshepsut to Punt clearly shows. The
queen of Punt is clearly Khoisanian. By Hatshepsut's period
"Eurasians" are crossing into Ethiopia. The queen's husband seems to
be clearly of Near Eastern racial affiliation.
:
> So, I remain convinced that the source of AfroAsiatic, and I
suppose
>by extension Nostratic, is to be found in east Africa. The formation
>and spread of languages I believe is a much more complex matter, and
>IMO not intrinsically connected with the spread of technical
>innovations. I still believe the most likely route for Semitic is
>across the Horn of Africa and up through Arabia.
Hmmm. Ultimately all Hss origins are to be found in east Africa, but
the horizon is back to 130,000 BCE. Not much movement north after
that. I agree the formation and spread of languages is a complex
matter. I have no argument about language formation - I leave that
to
the linguists. To me it seems to be due to quasi random "laws" (eg
Grimm?, Verner? etc) which give us some clues as to the sequence by
which languages diverge and spread. The motive for the spread,
however, is due I believe, to different factors. Chief of these is
that speakers of one language "out-reproduce" those of another, and
so
come to dominate. Another reason is that one language, achieving an
elite status, compells sub-elite languages to conform to their
standards. These two forces at times complement each other, at other
times contradict. Thus sub-stratum sometimes disappear, at other
times it is the super-stratum that does.
The role of technology is important as is gives a culture either the
means to exploit resources more intensively - assisting with
"out-populating" one language at the expense of another, or else
allowing one culture the means to establish themselves in elite
status
(as horses and chariots allowed I-E). Technological innovations and
their spread, I see as essential to this process. See Jared
Diamond's
excellent book "Guns, Germs and Steel: a history of the last 13,000
years, for an explanation.
> I'll come back on this.
Please do.
Warm regards
John