Egyptian Origins

[Robert Wey]

Hello experts,

I'm no archeologist, but I look through this group from time to time as
ancient archeology fascinates me. I have a fairly good understanding of
the intersecting
timelines of the ancient cultures but the question that keeps coming to
me is on
the origins of the ancient Egyptians. From what little I know, records
place there
cultural beginnings at about 3,000 BC.

In comparison to later cultures in the Mediteranian, (i.e. Minoans,
Greeks, etc. ), it
seems very little is known about Egyptian origin. Is the 3,000 BC mark
pretty well
established or is it debated? Is there any evidence of strong cultures
predating the
Egyptians?

Insight on this matter from those more educated than I would be
appreciated.

Thanks,
R. Wey

[Steve Whittet]

In article <325A0E...@primenet.com>, di...@primenet.com says...

>
>Hello experts,
>
>I'm no archeologist, but I look through this group from time to time as
>ancient archeology fascinates me. I have a fairly good understanding of
>the intersecting
>timelines of the ancient cultures but the question that keeps coming to
>me is on
>the origins of the ancient Egyptians. From what little I know, records
>place there
>cultural beginnings at about 3,000 BC.

That is a good rough number for the start of Dynastic Egypt,
pre dynastic Egyptian civilization in the Nile valley and
the Nile Delta goes back about another 1500 years through
the Naquada and Badariam cultures. The presence of people
goes back at least another 2000 years beyond that in the
Paleolithic.

>
>In comparison to later cultures in the Mediteranian, (i.e. Minoans,
>Greeks, etc. ), it
>seems very little is known about Egyptian origin. Is the 3,000 BC mark
>pretty well
>established or is it debated? Is there any evidence of strong cultures
>predating the
>Egyptians?

Catyal Hyuk, Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico
in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic.

I would use a date of c 4,500 BC for the first real emergence
of what we might call "cultures"...

>
>Insight on this matter from those more educated than I would be
>appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>R. Wey

steve

[Steve Whittet]

In article <53dt8j$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdie...@pantheon.yale.edu"
says...
>
>Steve, your information is poor.
>
>If you think that 3000 BC + 1500 + 2000 = paleolithic then you
>need to go back and read Roaf a little more carefully.

Actually that was from the "Atlas of Ancient Egypt" Baines and Ma'lek
chronological table page 9 "late Paleolithic c 6,500 BC"

> If you're only
>going to use one source, you at least ought to check it.

I use about forty with some frequency. If accuracy is important to
you you should note that.

> If you want to know more about Egyptian prehistory you might
>want to check out Wendorf,and the results from Wadi Kubaniyah
>and the Kharga Oasis. We're examining
>some paleolithic flints from that area right now.

Have you noted that Arabia also has an Al Kharg oasis at about
the same latitude?
>
>There are no sites in the Near East with pottery at 10,000 BC, and
>certainly not Jericho, which is aceramic until the 7th, possibly early
>8th millenium.

Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?

The poster asked:

"Is there any evidence of strong cultures predating the Egyptians?

I replied

"Catyal Hyuk, Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico
in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."

Here I had reference to another source. The presence of pottery
is one evidence of sedentism, nomads tend not to want to drag
a bunch of crockery around. The earliest pottery includes Jomon
Pottery dated to c 10,000 BC in Japan.

> Come to think of it, I'm not sure there is a PN level
>at Jericho. I'm in the computer center and don't have my sources
>handy. At any rate, your chronology is off about 3000 years. The plaster
>floors as a technological innovation predate pottery, by perhaps a
>substantial amount (1500 years?).

You have evidence of plaster floors dated c 11,500 BC?
>
>Don't know why you chose 4500 BC as your date for "culture", whatever you
>mean by that. Did you pick this from a hat or is there some reason?

Badarian in the Nile Valley dates from c 4500 BC, there is not a lot
of city building going on prior to then, Mesopotamia falls in that range,
so do the dates for European and Asian settlement. There are some earlier
and some later but I would put 4500 BC safely in the bell of the curve.

I
>suppose you like the late Ubaid, seeing what great seafarers they were,
>but I wouldn't sell the Halafians or PNers short, either. Most people
>think state formation doesn't begin until the Uruk, but who really knows.

I am not sure state formation is as good a criteria
as social stratification.
>
>Ben
>
>: That is a good rough number for the start of Dynastic Egypt,

>: pre dynastic Egyptian civilization in the Nile valley and
>: the Nile Delta goes back about another 1500 years through
>: the Naquada and Badariam cultures. The presence of people
>: goes back at least another 2000 years beyond that in the
>: Paleolithic.

>: >
>
>: Catyal Hyuk, Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico

>: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
>: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic.
>
>: I would use a date of c 4,500 BC for the first real emergence
>: of what we might call "cultures"...
>

>: steve
>
steve

[James Conway]

In a previous article, di...@primenet.com (Robert Wey) says:

>Hello experts,
>
>I'm no archeologist, but I look through this group from time to time as
>ancient archeology fascinates me. I have a fairly good understanding of
>the intersecting timelines of the ancient cultures but the question that
>keeps coming to me is on the origins of the ancient Egyptians. From
>what little I know, records place there cultural beginnings at about
>3,000 BC.

The records of the first dynasty beginnings are few and far
between. The timeline is arived at by knowning that the length
of the 1-10th dynasties is about 955 years long and that the
Middle Kingdom began, the end of Ur III, and events in Abraham's
days occurred mid 21st century BCE. That gives a 31st century
start for the first dynasty which is the best that can be offered
at this time by the known data and there is no reason to doubt
its correctness. Other proofs have been offered as to the 12th
dynasty placement which agrees with the Middle kingdoms placement.
Of course, *culture* did not begin at the first dynasty, but that
is where records suggest first dynasty culture began. Egyptian
chronology is always debated as it is the system in the main
that all other are correlated to. but this is changing as a
new tree ring chronology is finally in the process replacing
this relationship. Times are going to be interesting.

>In comparison to later cultures in the Mediteranian, (i.e. Minoans,
>Greeks, etc. ), it seems very little is known about Egyptian origin.

>Is the 3,000 BC mark pretty well established or is it debated? Is

>there any evidence of strong cultures predating the Egyptians?
>

>Insight on this matter from those more educated than I would be
>appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>R. Wey
>

--
James Conway bb...@scn.org
Seattle Washington USA
Chronology: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/

[Benjamin H. Diebold]

Steve Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
: In article <53dt8j$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdie...@pantheon.yale.edu"

: says...
: >
: >Steve, your information is poor.
: >
: >If you think that 3000 BC + 1500 + 2000 = paleolithic then you
: >need to go back and read Roaf a little more carefully.

: Actually that was from the "Atlas of Ancient Egypt" Baines and Ma'lek
: chronological table page 9 "late Paleolithic c 6,500 BC"

Why do you insist on placing primary importance on secondary sources, and
secondary importance on primary sources?

: > If you're only

: >going to use one source, you at least ought to check it.

: I use about forty with some frequency. If accuracy is important to
: you you should note that.

I see little evidence of it, especially in your Mesopotamian dabblings.

: > If you want to know more about Egyptian prehistory you might

: >want to check out Wendorf,and the results from Wadi Kubaniyah
: >and the Kharga Oasis. We're examining
: >some paleolithic flints from that area right now.

: Have you noted that Arabia also has an Al Kharg oasis at about
: the same latitude?

I give up. So what?

: >There are no sites in the Near East with pottery at 10,000 BC, and

: >certainly not Jericho, which is aceramic until the 7th, possibly early
: >8th millenium.

: Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?

Yes, you did. You even requoted yourself saying that in this post:

: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico [sic]

: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."

I don't know about you, but to me this looks like a claim that there are
sites in Palestine with pottery that go back to c 10,000 BC. I repeat:
there are none. You are off about 3,000 years. And 10,000 BC is ordinarily
considered pre-neolithic in the Levant. Most would call it epipaleolithic.
Roaf is better than this: take a look at his pages 24-38 in the CAM.

Roaf, p. 38:"The earliest known pottery comes from Japan and dates to the
11th millennium BC [actually, even earlier, as recent AMS radiocarbon
dates make clear]. In the Near East pottery appeared about 3,000 years
later and was almost certainly an independent invention."

Just take a peak at his giant chronological table on page 8: He clearly
shows the epipaleolithic continuing until around 8500 BC, with an
indication that FOLLOWING that is the ACERAMIC neolithic.

If you insist on using a secondary source, at least check it out.

: Here I had reference to another source. The presence of pottery

: is one evidence of sedentism, nomads tend not to want to drag
: a bunch of crockery around. The earliest pottery includes Jomon
: Pottery dated to c 10,000 BC in Japan.

Pottery is not a necessary indicator of sedentism. The Jomon pottery
predates 10,000 BC (the earliest dates are actually over 12,000 years, so
you're at least 2,000 years off here), but as it is in Japan it is
utterly, entirely, completely irrelevant to this discussion. I probably
don't need to tell you this, but Japan is not in Palestine, nor yet in the
Near East. Anyway, the earliest pottery does not "include" Jomon pottery
-- it IS Jomon pottery, which predates anything in the Near East by around
4,000 years, at least.

(By the way, interested readers may want to check out sometime
sci.archaeology visitor John Hoopes' book on The Emergence of Pottery,
which he coedited with William Barnett. Published by the Smithsonian, it's
a great resource, and includes a nice survey of the Jomon data.)

: > Come to think of it, I'm not sure there is a PN level

: >at Jericho. I'm in the computer center and don't have my sources
: >handy. At any rate, your chronology is off about 3000 years. The plaster
: >floors as a technological innovation predate pottery, by perhaps a
: >substantial amount (1500 years?).

: You have evidence of plaster floors dated c 11,500 BC?

No, I don't. You only imagine this because you think pottery in the Near
East goes back to 10,000 BC. It doesn't. Check your Roaf again. Plastered
floors ca 8500 BC, pottery ca 7000 BC.

: >Don't know why you chose 4500 BC as your date for "culture", whatever you

: >mean by that. Did you pick this from a hat or is there some reason?

: Badarian in the Nile Valley dates from c 4500 BC, there is not a lot
: of city building going on prior to then, Mesopotamia falls in that range,
: so do the dates for European and Asian settlement. There are some earlier
: and some later but I would put 4500 BC safely in the bell of the curve.

The "bell of the curve"? Do you imagine there's some nice unilineal
cultural evolutionary path leading up to the Badarians (or the Ubaid,
etc)? And what "falls in that range"? What do you imagine was happening in
Mesopotamia at 4500 BC?

: I

: >suppose you like the late Ubaid, seeing what great seafarers they were,
: >but I wouldn't sell the Halafians or PNers short, either. Most people
: >think state formation doesn't begin until the Uruk, but who really knows.

: I am not sure state formation is as good a criteria
: as social stratification.

What evidence do you have for social stratification among the Badarians?
I'd say there's more at Catal Huyuk or Cayonu Tepesi, back in the PN, but
that would put us off our cultural evolutionary path. And what does social
stratification have to do with culture? Are egalitarian societies or
weakly stratified societies without "culture"?

Ben

[Steve Whittet]

In article <53eo5v$4...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdie...@pantheon.yale.edu"
says...

>
>Steve Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
>: In article <53dt8j$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdie...@pantheon.yale.edu"
>: says...
>: >
>: >Steve, your information is poor.
>: >
>: >If you think that 3000 BC + 1500 + 2000 = paleolithic then you
>: >need to go back and read Roaf a little more carefully.
>
>: Actually that was from the "Atlas of Ancient Egypt" Baines and Ma'lek
>: chronological table page 9 "late Paleolithic c 6,500 BC"
>
>Why do you insist on placing primary importance on secondary sources, and
>secondary importance on primary sources?

The point is you are throwing a bunch of accusations around without
checking your facts first. If you don't know, ask.

>
>: > If you're only
>: >going to use one source, you at least ought to check it.
>
>: I use about forty with some frequency. If accuracy is important to
>: you you should note that.
>
>I see little evidence of it, especially in your Mesopotamian dabblings.

Anybody else remember ever seeing any of these cited?

Mathematics in the Time of the Pharoahs
Gillings MIT 1972 Cambridge
Secrets of the Great Pyramid Tompkins
Harper & Row 1971 New York
Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids Tompkins
Harper & Row 1976 New York
Prodigious Builders Bernard Rudofsky
Harcourt Brace 1978 New York
Atlas of Ancient Egypt John Baines, Jaromir Malek
Equinox 1987 New York
Egyptian Mythology Paul Hamlyn
Westbook 1965 London
The Nile (1st edition leatherbound) E.A. Wallis Budge
Thos. Cook 1902 London
Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia Michael Roaf
Equinox London, 1990
Adventures in Archaeology Anne ward
John Wiley 1978 New York
Temples Tombs and Hieroglyphs Barbara Mertz
John Wiley 1977 New York
Red land Black Land Barbara Mertz
John Wiley 1977 New York
Middle Egyptian Faulkner
Harper & Row 1976 New York
Ten Books on Architecture Vitruvious
MIT 1978 Cambridge
The Dialouges Plato
MIT 1990 Cambridge
The History Herodotus
MIT 1972 Cambridge
The World of measurement H Arthur Klein
Walker & Co 1976 New York
The McGraw Hill Dictionary of Physics and Mathematics
McGraw Hill Walker & Co 1977 New York
The Gods of the Egyptians Vol I E.A. Wallis Budge
MIT 1972 Cambridge
The Gods of the Egyptians Vol II E.A. Wallis Budge
MIT 1971 Cambridge
Cleopatras Needle E.A. Wallis Budge
MIT 1976 Cambridge
The Jerusalem Bible
Harper & Row 1978 New York
The Phoenicians Gerard Herm
Harper & Row 1978 New York
Rivers in the Desert Nelson Glueck
Jewish Pub Soc 1967 New York
The Eternal Present S Gideon
Walker & Co 1972 New York
An Ancient World Preserved Fredric Andre Engles
MIT 1972 Cambridge
The New York Public Library Desk Reference Websters
John Wiley 1976 New York
History of Art Janson
CUP 1968 New York
Blacks Law Dictionary Black
Crown 1978 London

For seafarers and voyagers to strange places

Synergetics Buckminster Fuller
MIT 1976 Cambridge
A History of Seafaring Bass
Walker & Co 1972 New York
Bahrain through the Ages Mchael Rice
KEI London 1990
The European Discovery of America the Northern Voyages
Samuel Elliot Morrison Oxford 1967 London
The European Discovery of America the Southern Voyages
Samuel Elliot Morrison Oxford 1967 London
Climatic Change John Gribbin
CUP 1978 Cambridge
Prehistory and Protohistory of The Arabian Penninsula vol 1 Nayeem
Hyderabad 1990 Hyderabad
The Evolving Continents Brian Windley
John Wiley 1977 New York
Principles of Physical geology Doris Holmes
Crown 1976 New York
The Architectural History of Newport Rhode Island
Downing & Scully Newport Hist Soc 1972 New York
Ancient American Inscriptions Whippell
Harcourt Brace 1978 Cambridge

For Eco fans

The Medieval machine Jean Gimpel
Bonanza 1965 New York
Les Vitreaux Oliver Merson
John Wiley 1977 New York
The Playbook of Metals John Henry Pepper
George Routledge 1863 London
Witchcraft, Magic and Alchemy Grillot de Givry
Bonanza 1957 Rockport
The Atlas of the Crusades Johnathan Riley Smith
John Wiley 1990 New York


Not reccomended

America BC Barry Fell
John Wiley 1977 New York
Fingerprints of the Gods Grahm Hancock
Harper & Row 1987 New York

>
>: > If you want to know more about Egyptian prehistory you might
>: >want to check out Wendorf,and the results from Wadi Kubaniyah
>: >and the Kharga Oasis. We're examining
>: >some paleolithic flints from that area right now.
>

>: >There are no sites in the Near East with pottery at 10,000 BC, and
>: >certainly not Jericho, which is aceramic until the 7th, possibly early
>: >8th millenium.
>
>: Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?
>
>Yes, you did. You even requoted yourself saying that in this post:

I said "sites with pottery", Not "Near Eastern sites with pottery"
the posters question was asking what's the oldest evidence for a
culture, not what's the oldest evidence for a culture in the Near East.

>
>: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico [sic]
>: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
>: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."
>
>I don't know about you, but to me this looks like a claim that there are
>sites in Palestine with pottery that go back to c 10,000 BC.

Then you need to read more carefully.

> I repeat:there are none. You are off about 3,000 years.

If you don't think I know my dates go back and peruse
Dejanews for a while, I have mentioned most of this stuff
a few hundred times anyway.

And 10,000 BC is ordinarily
>considered pre-neolithic in the Levant. Most would call it epipaleolithic.
>Roaf is better than this: take a look at his pages 24-38 in the CAM.

I know you got far enough down the page to see that I mentioned
Jomon pottery (11th millenium BC is c 10,000 BC - 11,000 BC) in
this thread, now go back to DejaNews and see how many times I
have mentioned it before.

>
>Roaf, p. 38:"The earliest known pottery comes from Japan and dates to the
>11th millennium BC [actually, even earlier, as recent AMS radiocarbon
>dates make clear]. In the Near East pottery appeared about 3,000 years
>later and was almost certainly an independent invention."

Pottery Cord wrapped Jomon pottery
in Japan goes back to c 10,500 BC.

>
>Just take a peak at his giant chronological table on page 8: He clearly
>shows the epipaleolithic continuing until around 8500 BC, with an
>indication that FOLLOWING that is the ACERAMIC neolithic.

I didn't associate pottery with

the Neolithic, or assign it a date. I said:
"sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."
>

>If you insist on using a secondary source, at least check it out.

sheesh...

>
>: Here I had reference to another source. The presence of pottery
>: is one evidence of sedentism, nomads tend not to want to drag
>: a bunch of crockery around. The earliest pottery includes Jomon
>: Pottery dated to c 10,000 BC in Japan.
>
>Pottery is not a necessary indicator of sedentism. The Jomon pottery
>predates 10,000 BC (the earliest dates are actually over 12,000 years, so
>you're at least 2,000 years off here),

I believe if you check carefully you will find that the earliest
pottery in Japan spread throughout the islands from south western Kyushu to
northern Honshu finally reaching Hokkaido c 6,500 BC.

http://www.ict.co.jp/www-history/pre-agri.html

From Hunters to Rice Growers
...snip...

The inhabitants of the early communities had no metal as yet, but they had
artistic earthenware, lacquer
ware, cutting tools, like knives and axes, and sharp arrowheads made of
polished hard stones. The
findings suggest that the new stone age lasted for about eight thousand
years, until systematic
agriculture of rice, or the iron age started in the fourth or third century
BC.

This period, starting about 10,000 years ago, is known as "Jomon Period" as
their earthenware
typically had rope like patterns on the surface. Jomon means "pattern of
ropes". Archaeologists call the
people of this period as "Jomon-jin", meaning people of the Jomon Period.

(Fragment of Jomon Earthenware)
...snip...

For questions and comments, please mail to ICT, Inc.

Last Updated: March 26,1996

but as it is in Japan it is
>utterly, entirely, completely irrelevant to this discussion. I probably
>don't need to tell you this,

Yes, but you are anywhy, why is that?

but Japan is not in Palestine, nor yet in the Near East.

Thank you for enlightening me...:)

Anyway, the earliest pottery does not "include" Jomon pottery
>-- it IS Jomon pottery, which predates anything in the Near East by around
>4,000 years, at least.

how about that...:)

>
>(By the way, interested readers may want to check out sometime
>sci.archaeology visitor John Hoopes' book on The Emergence of Pottery,
>which he coedited with William Barnett. Published by the Smithsonian, it's
>a great resource, and includes a nice survey of the Jomon data.)
>
>: > Come to think of it, I'm not sure there is a PN level
>: >at Jericho. I'm in the computer center and don't have my sources
>: >handy. At any rate, your chronology is off about 3000 years. The plaster
>: >floors as a technological innovation predate pottery, by perhaps a
>: >substantial amount (1500 years?).
>
>: You have evidence of plaster floors dated c 11,500 BC?
>
>No, I don't. You only imagine this because you think pottery in the Near
>East goes back to 10,000 BC. It doesn't. Check your Roaf again. Plastered
>floors ca 8500 BC, pottery ca 7000 BC.

Read what you wrote.

You didn't say "*plaster floors in the Near East* predate *pottery in the
near East* by 1500 years", you said

"The *plaster floors* as a technological innovation predate *pottery*,

by perhaps a substantial amount (1500 years?)."

and this after you had just finished telling me how far back you
thought pottery went in Japan.

>
>: >Don't know why you chose 4500 BC as your date for "culture", whatever you
>: >mean by that. Did you pick this from a hat or is there some reason?
>
>: Badarian in the Nile Valley dates from c 4500 BC, there is not a lot
>: of city building going on prior to then, Mesopotamia falls in that range,
>: so do the dates for European and Asian settlement. There are some earlier
>: and some later but I would put 4500 BC safely in the bell of the curve.
>
>The "bell of the curve"? Do you imagine there's some nice unilineal
>cultural evolutionary path leading up to the Badarians (or the Ubaid,
>etc)? And what "falls in that range"? What do you imagine was happening in
>Mesopotamia at 4500 BC?

sigh...come on

>
>: I
>: >suppose you like the late Ubaid, seeing what great seafarers they were,
>: >but I wouldn't sell the Halafians or PNers short, either. Most people
>: >think state formation doesn't begin until the Uruk, but who really knows.
>
>: I am not sure state formation is as good a criteria
>: as social stratification.
>
>What evidence do you have for social stratification among the Badarians?
>I'd say there's more at Catal Huyuk or Cayonu Tepesi, back in the PN, but
>that would put us off our cultural evolutionary path. And what does social
>stratification have to do with culture? Are egalitarian societies or
>weakly stratified societies without "culture"?
>
>Ben

steve

[Stella Nemeth]

bdie...@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) wrote:

>: Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?

>Yes, you did. You even requoted yourself saying that in this post:

>: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico [sic]
>: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
>: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."

....[sigh]...

We've got a grammer problem here. And a badly written sentence. But,
as far as I can see you aren't in disagreement about the facts.

Steve said:

1. Catyal Hyuk, Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium.

2. Jehrico in Palestine.

3. Sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC.

4. Sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolitic.

Although I also originally read the statement about the pottery as
referring to Jerico, it is obvious from what Steve said later that
they were two different statements in a series of four.

This is Usenet guys. No one does four drafts of every message before
they post it.

Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com

[Benjamin H. Diebold]

Stella Nemeth (S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
: bdie...@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) wrote:

: >: Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?

: >Yes, you did. You even requoted yourself saying that in this post:

: >: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico [sic]
: >: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
: >: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."

: ....[sigh]...

: We've got a grammer problem here. And a badly written sentence. But,
: as far as I can see you aren't in disagreement about the facts.

: Steve said:

: 1. Catyal Hyuk, Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium.

: 2. Jehrico in Palestine.

: 3. Sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC.

: 4. Sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolitic.

: Although I also originally read the statement about the pottery as

: referring to Jerico, it is obvious from what Steve said later that
: they were two different statements in a series of four.

: This is Usenet guys. No one does four drafts of every message before
: they post it.

Naturally not. But a brief instant of reflection on draft #1 might be
nice.

Decent try to rehabilitate Steve, Stella, but I don't think it works. In a
part of the post you ellided, it's clear that his conception is that
pottery in the Near East dates back to 10,000 BC. As I pointed out, and
as Roaf makes clear at various points, that is incorrect.

Anyway, by this account, we have, in a thread on "Egyptian origins" a
sentence which is supposed to be construed as [claim about the Near East],
[non sequitor situated in Near East], [wildly out of context, very
indirect, and inaccurate claim about Japan], [claim about the Near East].

If this is so, then Steve has reached a new level of incomprehensibility,
one that places anything he might say out of reach of examination, even if
one were willing to make the effort (which grows increasingly unlikely).

Or, he could just admit he made a mistake.

Ben

[Steve Whittet]

In article <53mbgd$d...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdie...@pantheon.yale.edu"
says...

>
>Stella Nemeth (S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM) wrote:
>: bdie...@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) wrote:

>
>: >: Did I claim that there were any such sites in the Near east?

>
>: >Yes, you did. You even requoted yourself saying that in this post:

A poster asked:
"
ello experts,

...ancient archeology ...the intersecting
timelines of the ancient cultures...the origins of the ancient Egyptians.
...cultural beginnings at about 3,000 BC.

In comparison to later cultures ...very little is known about Egyptian
origin. ...the 3,000 BC mark ...Is there any evidence of strong cultures
predating the Egyptians?
...
Thanks,
R. Wey"

So as evidence of strong cultures predating the Egyptians I listed...
>
>: >: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium,

>: >: Jehrico [sic] in Palestine,
>: >: sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC
>: >: and sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."
>

>: ....[sigh]...
>
>: We've got a grammer problem here. And a badly written sentence. But,
>: as far as I can see you aren't in disagreement about the facts.
>
>: Steve said:
>
>: 1. Catyal Hyuk, Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium.
>
>: 2. Jehrico in Palestine.
>
>: 3. Sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC.
>
>: 4. Sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolitic.
>
>: Although I also originally read the statement about the pottery as
>: referring to Jerico, it is obvious from what Steve said later that
>: they were two different statements in a series of four.
>
>: This is Usenet guys. No one does four drafts of every message before
>: they post it.
>
>Naturally not. But a brief instant of reflection on draft #1 might be
>nice.
>
>Decent try to rehabilitate Steve, Stella, but I don't think it works. In a
>part of the post you ellided, it's clear that his conception is that
>pottery in the Near East dates back to 10,000 BC.

Where does it say pottery in the Near East?
What it says is "Sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC."

You have been told this several times, are you being deliberately obtuse?
You made an assumption. The assumption was wrong. Deal with it.
...

>Anyway, by this account, we have, in a thread on "Egyptian origins" a
>sentence which is supposed to be construed as [claim about the Near East],
>[non sequitor situated in Near East], [wildly out of context, very
>indirect, and inaccurate claim about Japan], [claim about the Near East].

Settle down... the poster asked for and recieved a list of

"evidence of strong cultures predating the Egyptians"
>

>If this is so, then Steve has reached a new level of incomprehensibility,
>one that places anything he might say out of reach of examination, even if
>one were willing to make the effort (which grows increasingly unlikely).
>
>Or, he could just admit he made a mistake.

I must admit I am impressed by your zeal ...:)
>
>Ben
>
steve

[rejo...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu]

Just a few pedant points illustrating a need for some critical thought
here...being an amateur doesn't mean you can be atheoretical....

On 8 Oct 1996, Steve Whittet wrote:

> In article <325A0E...@primenet.com>, di...@primenet.com says...
> >

> > (snip)

> >the origins of the ancient Egyptians. From what little I know, records

> >place there [sic]

> >cultural beginnings at about 3,000 BC.
>

> (snip)

>
> The presence of people
> goes back at least another 2000 years beyond that in the
> Paleolithic.
>

> >Is the 3,000 BC mark pretty well

> >established or is it debated? Is there any evidence of strong cultures
> >predating the
> >Egyptians?
>
> (snip)

>
> I would use a date of c 4,500 BC for the first real emergence
> of what we might call "cultures"...

Two issues: what is culture (and what is a strong culture)? And why did
people prior to 4,500 BC not have it?

This is the problem with the uncritical 'folk' use of technical terms.
"Culture", in the sense in which it is used in these posts, is a
technical term, invented by anthropologists in the late 19th century.
There is no formulaic definition, but most anthros would agree that it
encompasses all aspects of human life that do not follow from our
biological heritage.

Under this definition, people prior to 4,500 BC did in fact have
culture. Under this definition, it is culture which makes us people.
You have people, you have culture.

What seems to be going on in these two posts is the confusion of
"culture" and "civilization". This raises another problem: what is
civilization? I don't know that there is anything that might smell like
a consensus on this, certainly not among anthropologists. In a later
post, Whittet apparently suggests that civilization emerges with social
stratification. If so, why not just call it that? But many people seem
to think state formation and/or urbanism necessary to civilization. (Not
that there is any agreement on what constitues states or urbanism).

I am basically ignorant about Egyption pre/history. That is not my
point. My point is that there are terms being tossed about which have
great significance for the course and resolution of the issues, which are
not being defined. Basically, there are no universal definitions for
these terms (except maybe a loose one for culture), so you can't just
assume everyone knows what you mean. Define your terms, people.

My other point is that you cannot conflate culture and civilization.
PARTICULARLY when all you have is archaeological remains. Much of
culture is not material, and therefore won't preserve. Much of cultural
material often will not preserve, either. You cannot put a date on the
emergence of culture in a region, unless you can put a date on the
appearance of people in the region, and the dates cannot be different.
Culture emerged with human evolution; it is not an invention.

Finally -- what do you mean by the "first real emergence of what we
might call 'cultures'", Steve? Are you suggesting there were several fake
emergences, as well as subsequent real emergences? How would
you propose we distinguish between real and fake culture? Indeed, if the
"first real emergence" is of things we merely "might" call "'cultures'"
(apparently they were so ambiguously cultural that quotation marks were
necessary), how do you justify thinking of them as real rather than fake
cultures?

Just wondering.

Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. student, Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa

[Angus Mann]

On 11-Oct-96 12:10:51 Stella Nemeth <S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:

>>: "Catyal Hyuk[sic], Turkey goes back to the 7th millenium, Jehrico [sic]
>>: in Palestine, sites with pottery go back to c 10,000 BC and
>>: sites with plaster floors go back into the Neolithic."

>....[sigh]...

>We've got a grammer problem here. And a badly written sentence. But,

Good thing we don't have a grammar problem too, or there'd be trouble...

>This is Usenet guys. No one does four drafts of every message before
>they post it.

Then why point out a grammar "problem"???

>Stella Nemeth
>s.ne...@ix.netcom.com

--
Angus Mann, Sydney Australia
eMail am...@mail.usyd.edu.au
WWW http://www.usyd.edu.au/~amann/
2D 35 17 4A 78 78 89 05 97 F0 FB 54 1F 26 CF EE (Key on WWW page)
--

[Dan Barnes]

In article <53uv3q$3...@shore.shore.net>, whi...@shore.net says...

>How about those in China and elsewhere which now seemingly
>predate the "out of Africa" culture which a few years ago
>supposedly was the ancestor of us all c 100,000 years BP?
>
I'm not aware of this 'culture' could you elaborate?

Dan.

[Timo Niroma]

In article <Dzou7...@liverpool.ac.uk>, dba...@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes)
says:

The first wave of humans, Homo erectus, went out of Africa, between
700,000 to 1 million years ago.

They reached every corner of the Earth except America (and Antarctica).

The second wave of humans, archaic Homo sapiens went out of Africa during
the Eemian interglacial some 120,000 to 130,000 years ago.

We all are descendants of the second wave, the first wave did not
survive, when the second wave moved around the globe.

Timo

[Stella Nemeth]

timo....@tilmari.pp.fi (Timo Niroma) wrote:

>The first wave of humans, Homo erectus, went out of Africa, between
>700,000 to 1 million years ago.

>They reached every corner of the Earth except America (and Antarctica).

>The second wave of humans, archaic Homo sapiens went out of Africa during
>the Eemian interglacial some 120,000 to 130,000 years ago.

>We all are descendants of the second wave, the first wave did not
>survive, when the second wave moved around the globe.

That is a very good short summary of one of the current theories.

There are others which are more complicated and which say that we are
all the descendants of the first wave, and the second wave as well.
And probably a third, fourth and fifth wave as well. That we never
stopped being able to interbreed, and that since any two groups of
humans seem to immediately get right to breeding within hours of
meeting one another, there is no need to look for any special
mechanism which would allow us to have descended from that first wave
of humans that left Africa to settle the world.

Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com

[Timo Niroma]

In article <54nr2u$n...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella

Yes, I simplified the picture a little to make the main theme clearer. There are no
proven findings about migration(s) between the waves, which is very understandable
in the view of palaeoclimatology. The harsh ice ages began 700,000 years ago and
outside Africa there was not pleasant except during some short warmer intervals.
During the last one before the recent, i.e. the Eemian one some 130,000 to 110,000
years ago, there first time during an interglacial existed almost modern (more
modern than erectus but not yet sapiens sapiens, only sapiens).

This time was a beginning of Homo Sapiens out of Africa, there surely was constantly
increasing exchange during the last 100,000 years. More people left and some came
back. The interbreeding between the first wave and this second wave is a difficult
question. We are not even sure, if the erectus had 23 chromosomes as Homo Sapiens or
24 as the chimpanzees. There is mithocondrial evidence against interbreeding, as
well as anatomical, but we can't be sure at least until the male DNA investigations
are done (they are in the making, but the process still takes time). But at least
the female mithocondrial evidence suggests, that we are all descendants from a small
group of Homo sapiens that left Africa (of course some stayed) a little over 100,000
years ago.

Timo

[Stella Nemeth]

timo....@tilmari.pp.fi (Timo Niroma) wrote:

>This time was a beginning of Homo Sapiens out of Africa, there surely was constantly
>increasing exchange during the last 100,000 years. More people left and some came
>back. The interbreeding between the first wave and this second wave is a difficult
>question. We are not even sure, if the erectus had 23 chromosomes as Homo Sapiens or
>24 as the chimpanzees. There is mithocondrial evidence against interbreeding, as
>well as anatomical, but we can't be sure at least until the male DNA investigations
>are done (they are in the making, but the process still takes time). But at least
>the female mithocondrial evidence suggests, that we are all descendants from a small
>group of Homo sapiens that left Africa (of course some stayed) a little over 100,000
>years ago.

There are problems with the mithocondrial evidence: bad sample
collection (since rectified) and a computer glitch, which I believe
has not been rectified. It turns out that the results you get, the
tree that is generated, depends on the order that the data is feed
into the computer. So, using exactly the same data as the original
study used, trees that were simpler than the African rooted tree were
produced by the same program, which roots that were NOT African.

I have no opinion either way on this question. I just wanted to set
the record straight that the jury, as of the last book I read on the
subject, was still out on that last, late migration.

Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com

[Dan Barnes]

In article <54j6tk$q...@idefix.eunet.fi>, timo....@tilmari.pp.fi says...

>
>In article <Dzou7...@liverpool.ac.uk>, dba...@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes)
>says:
>>
>>In article <53uv3q$3...@shore.shore.net>, whi...@shore.net says...
>>
>>>How about those in China and elsewhere which now seemingly
>>>predate the "out of Africa" culture which a few years ago
>>>supposedly was the ancestor of us all c 100,000 years BP?
>>>
>>I'm not aware of this 'culture' could you elaborate?
>>

>The first wave of humans, Homo erectus, went out of Africa, between
>700,000 to 1 million years ago.

They may not have been the first. There is some evidence for Homo habilis
since some sites date to at least 2 Ma. If you notice most 'experts' are now
refering to an early migration of Homo.
Erectus must have left Africa around 1.8 Ma if the bulk of new dates is to be
believed.

>They reached every corner of the Earth except America (and Antarctica).

And Australia and virtually every island that was seperated from the mainland at
that time.

>The second wave of humans, archaic Homo sapiens went out of Africa during
>the Eemian interglacial some 120,000 to 130,000 years ago.

If Rightmire is right then they left (if they left) around 600-500 ka. the 120-130 ka
time period is when AMHs where beginning to appear. You would have trouble
finding any late (African Transitional Group) hominids from this period. Singa is
well over 130 ka.

>We all are descendants of the second wave, the first wave did not
>survive, when the second wave moved around the globe.
>

This is of course not neccesarily true (even as mentioned in another post on the
subject of the number of waves - I favour three or four, for the record). None of
the four major theories of human evolution (as presented in Smith et al, 1989 or
Aiello, 1993) resemble this at all - which is different from saying its wrong.

Dan.

[Dan Barnes]

In article <54ok5v$6...@idefix.eunet.fi>, timo....@tilmari.pp.fi says...

>Yes, I simplified the picture a little to make the main theme clearer. There are
> no
>proven findings about migration(s) between the waves, which is very
understandab
>le
>in the view of palaeoclimatology. The harsh ice ages began 700,000 years
ago and
>
>outside Africa there was not pleasant except during some short warmer
intervals.

The latest phase of Ice Ages started before 1.8 Ma.

>During the last one before the recent, i.e. the Eemian one some 130,000 to
110,0
>00
>years ago, there first time during an interglacial existed almost modern (more
>modern than erectus but not yet sapiens sapiens, only sapiens).

By 110-130 ka the AMHs had emerged in Africa. They may not have fallen
within the range of fully modern features (Howells, 1989) however they are
definitely modern (Day and Stringer, 1982; 1991; Rak, 1990; 1992; Brauer et al,
1992 to name a few). They were more modern than erectus but so were the
archaic Homo sapiens (Homo heidelbergensis) who replaced erectus from 600
ka these in turn were replaced by modern humans around 130 ka.

>This time was a beginning of Homo Sapiens out of Africa, there surely was
> constantly increasing exchange during the last 100,000 years. More people >
left and some came back.

I'm not aware of any evidence that supports this. In fact some of the evidence
suggests the opposite - one major migratio from Africa c. 100 ka with little flow
back.

> The interbreeding between the first wave and this second wave is a difficult

> question. There is mithocondrial evidence against interbreeding,

There is a lot more genetic (e.g. nDNA) and language and blood group
evidence that supports this data (esp. in the creation of the much criticised
'trees' from mtDNA).

> as well as anatomical,

The CT scans of the inner ear and radiograph of the teeth (to name my two
favourite studies) are quite convincing - evidence which I believe would support
putting Neanderthals in another species.

> but we can't be sure at least until the male DNA investigations
>are done (they are in the making, but the process still takes time).

I thought some results were already published (but I'd have to check on this
point)

> But at least the female mithocondrial evidence suggests, that we are all >
descendants from a small group of Homo sapiens that left Africa (of course >
some stayed) a little over 100,000 years ago.
>

This is supported by quite a lot of genetic evidence now.

Dan