Talk:Predynastic Egypt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Egyptology Portal This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

It's disputed whether this began 4000 BC (beginning of Naqada culture) or in the Lower Paleolithic? That seems quite suspicious, as the Lower Paleolithic ended 120,000 years ago. Even the Upper Paleolithic is 4500 years older than that. Could somebody back this up? Nickptar 00:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Paleolithic is merely being confused with Neolithic. --Wetman 02:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Paleolithic or Predynastic? 2 Origins 3 Copyedit help 4 Nabta Playa 5 Removal 6 Pigs cause Sahara desert? 7 Cultures, not dates. 8 Storage 8.1 Late Neolithic 8.2 6th millennium BC 8.3 5th millennium BC 8.4 4th millennium BC 9 A few comments.....

[edit] Paleolithic or Predynastic?

It's disputed whether this began 4000 BC (beginning of Naqada culture) or in the 
Lower Paleolithic? ... Could somebody back this up?

Every book I consulted on this question (e.g. Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, among others) starts the Predynastic at either c.5300 BC (as in Oxford History of Ancient Egypt) or c.4400 BC at the time of the Badari culture (for upper Egypt). The paleolithic should not be placed in the predynastic. I know there will always be some dispute, but Oxford History of Ancient Egypt is an authoritative reference.

I propose that what is currently in Predynastic Egypt (which mainly covers the paleolithic and up to 4th and 5th millenia BC) be placed in its own, new article called the Paleolithic Period (Egypt) or something similar, and that the Predynastic Egypt article contain detailed chronology of the Badari and Naqada I-II cultures (at a minimum), consistent with the Oxford History and most other standard references. I have already written quite a bit of material (offline) about Badari through Naqada III and I would be willing to make the changes on Wiki, and expand the stubs or write new pages if needed.

If anyone has any opinions on this, I'd like to hear it, and I would like to know what the ramifications are of making such a change. I won't make any changes until I hear some input. --Jeff Dahl 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gardiner puts the paleolithic in the predynastic. So does Grimal. The predynastic isn't a really quite well defined term, it's just basically everything before the dynastic. Thanatosimii 23:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Check that-- Egyptologists usually treat the stone age during the predynastic, although the predynastic proper starts with the Tasian and Baderian culture groups. Thus, the section "Precursors to the Predynastic" has been created, and treats the stone age still in this article, but the predynastic itself should be differeniated. Thanatosimii 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

Has anyone an idea about the ethnic origins of the ancient Egyptians??

My brief reading is that the proto Semetic-Hamitic orginated in the Green Sahara if so Egyptians would have started to separate out as distict group when the Sahara started to dry up.Dejvid 17:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit help

Over time, I will be attempting to "clean up" the Egyptian pages that are interlinked, but with so many contributors, there is a lack of cohesion in the way common terms are written. For example: pharaoh should not be capitalized unless it proceeds the pharaoh's name, as in his title. Otherwise "pharaoh" is a a general term. Also, the term "dynasty" (and the number associated with it) is written in a number of ways...I prefer to use the proper name spelled out. Instead of 5th dynasty..it is Fifth Dynasty (though the "master" wikipedia pages regarding each dynasty are spelled with a lowercase "d"). At some point, I would request a change for a capital on the masters, as the official and/or proper name for any dynasty includes the word "Dynasty." Lastly, use the character of a number when referring to years (2, 3, 4)(except one, which is always spelled out). Spell out all other numbers in sentences up to 99. At 100 or more, use the characters (100, 101, 102). I would appreciate everyone's help in getting the Egyptian pages under control with a more consistent format. Thanks Brina700 02:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nabta Playa

Can someone verify the edits regarding Nabta Playa ? I refer you to User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Wizzy…☎ 09:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have done a major revert of the main page back to September 22nd. 4.241.* anon addresses are also Roylee IP addresses. I have had no confirmation from my previous request that these edits are legitimate. Wizzy…☎ 08:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

...and many reasons in fact to assume they are not. — mark ✎ 09:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Folks, Historians, I need some help here. You can see (from the diffs) the large amount of material added by Roylee - the 4.241.* IP addresses convince me that it is all the same user. I am not an Egyptologist, I think we are fighting a low-level POV pusher. Roylee never enters dialog on Talk pages. I see this as vandalism that is particularly tiresome to remove (if it is vandalism). Roylee starts a page (this time Nabta Playa) and then makes lots of small, self-referential edits that support his position to many surrounding pages - if you say it three times it is true. He has pushed POV about Ancient Egyptians and Shipbuilding, Ancient Egyptians and Electricity, and now we have this. Wizzy…☎ 19:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Question: is this page (with its many references to Nabta Playa) a NPOV encyclopedic work ?

I concur, we really need fact-checkers and expert editors here. I have just reverted Roylee's addition of his material again because I think it is very important that Roylee take part in the discussion of this specific edits, but also of his editing pattern in general (the latter discussion can probably better take place somewhere else). — mark ✎ 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

I removed this sentence until verified. See also Talk:Silk Road: There is evidence that ancient Egyptian explorers may have originally cleared and protected some branches of the Silk Road. --JFK 09:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for doing that. For more information on who added it, see User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee. — mark ✎ 11:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pigs cause Sahara desert?

The Late Neolithic section of this entry points to the Sahara Desert (ecoregion) section of the Wikipedia in reference to the theory that pigs helped cause the desertification of the Sahara, however that information was removed from that section in July. So, should it be added back to that section (with references) and any contradictions in other articles cleaned up, or should the reference be removed from this section? I would guess that the answer depends on whether the claim can be justified. Anyone want to tackle this one? -- 70.20.151.239 12:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the references in this section

Interestingly, the domestication of the pig (see  
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pigs.htm]) in the Sahara and ancient Egypt has been  
cited as a likely primary contributor to the desertification of the Sahara (see [[Sahara Desert 
(ecoregion)#Settings|Sahara Desert (ecoregion)]]).

actually point to a primary source confirming this. In an article "Pigs and their prohibition" in Int. J. Middle East Stud. 26 (1994), 57-75 Richard A. Lobban, Jr., states that "the desert began to encroach upon the narrow river valley habitat" as early as 7000 BC, but that domestication of the pig began as early as 5000 BC. This seems to indicate that the "primary contributor" to the desertification of the Sahara was not domesticated pigs, because the dessication began before domestication of the pig. This is not to say, however, that the pigs had no effect on the environment.

I am going to remove this claim because it does not have any citation(s), other citations show that dessication was not due to the domesticated pig, and because it is merely speculation. --Jeff Dahl 21:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultures, not dates.

It is customary to refer to a culture type, not a date. Dates are quite estimated. Egyptology may dispute when a culture happened quite vigorously, but people don't dispute what happened during a culture nearly as much. So the dates are eventually going to need to be changed to tasian, badarian, amratian, and gerzean cultures, or Naqada I and II for the last two depending on what source to use. Thanatosimii 23:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Storage

Whoever wrote this, by all means put some of this back in. However, dates don't help me when trying to put this into the article, because dates are not agreed on. If you know what culture group to put these things in, however, by all means do so. Thanatosimii 03:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Late Neolithic

Evidence indicates human habitation in the southwestern corner of Egypt, near the Sudan border, before 8000 BC.

Climate changes and/or overgrazing around 8000 BC began to desiccate the pastoral lands of Egypt, eventually forming the Sahara (c. 2500 BC), and early tribes naturally migrated to the Nile river where they developed a settled agricultural economy and more centralized society.

There is evidence of pastoralism and cultivation of cereals in the East Sahara in the 7th millennium BC.

Domesticated animals had already been imported from Asia between 7500 BC and 4000 BC (see Sahara: History, Cattle period).

The earliest known artwork of ships in ancient Egypt dates to 6000 BCE (reference: 'Britannica subscribers only').

[edit] 6th millennium BC

By 6000 BC predynastic Egyptians in the southwestern corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings.

Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in ancient Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture: cattle, goats, pigs and sheep [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Tanning animal skins, pottery and weaving are commonplace in this era also [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. There are indications of seasonal or only temporary occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC, with food activities centering on fishing, hunting and food-gathering [1]. Stone arrowheads, knives and scrapers are common [2].

Burial items in this era include pottery, jewelry, farming and hunting equipment, and assorted foods including dried meat and fruit [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. The dead are buried facing due west [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm].

Baskets of exceedingly high quality date to circa 5000 BC [3].

[edit] 5th millennium BC

Items dating to this era of the Al Fayyum (5200 BC-4000 BC) include: axes of basalt, dolerite and limestone [4]; a diorite mace head; dolerite vase; a wooden sickle [5] and sickle blades [6]; arrowheads [7]; stone palettes and grain rubbers; silos [8]; dishes, cups, bowls and pots [9]; as well as beads of amazonite (feldspar) [10].

The Badarian way of life centered mostly on agriculture, fishing and animal husbandry (see Badarian). Foreign artifacts indicate distant contacts as far away as Syria [11]. Furniture, tableware, decorated pots and vases, combs and figurines all appear around this time [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Social stratification has been inferred from the burying of more prosperous members of the community in a different part of the cemetery (see Badarian).

Around 4500 BC the Naqada culture begins, with geometric, human- and animal-shaped designs adorning pottery, both carved and painted [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Shapes of vessels become specialized depending on function [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Models of rectangular houses (included in grave goods) also appear in this era [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm].

A finely woven linen fragment in the Al Fayyum dates to 4400 BC [12].

By 4000 BC we have evidence of pre-dynastic alchemists having invented the use of mortar (masonry) (see Alchemy in Ancient Egypt) via one of the oldest known of chemical reactions (see calcium oxide).

[edit] 4th millennium BC

By 4000 BC human, animal, and other designs on pottery become more realistic [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Tomb-building appears in the Gerzean culture, including underground rooms with furniture and amulets [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Gerzean practices would later evolve into the Osiris cult of ancient Egypt [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Symbols on Gerzean pottery resemble traditional hieroglyph writing [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm].

By the beginning of the 4th millennium BC, ancient Egyptians in Maadi were importing numerous items of pottery from south Naqada and Canaan [13]. The economy of Maadi seems to have centered on metallurgy and foreign trade [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/maadi.htm]. Many vessels made of black basalt also appear at this time [14]. There is evidence of the use of wooden posts in Maadi, maybe for buildings and/or fences. Also found are fire places and pits [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/maadi.htm].

The earliest known buildings of stone to appear in ancient Egypt date to this era in Maadi, including one subterranean building that was constructed by covering walls of stone with Nile mud, another building thats entrance seems to have been fashioned by carving the local bedrock, and other building designs which also reveal distant southern Canaanite contact [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/maadi.htm].

Lapis lazuli was being traded from its only known source in the ancient world – Badakshan, in what is now northeastern Afghanistan – as far as Mesopotamia and Egypt by the second half of the 4th millennium BC. Between 1979 and 1985, charcoal samples found in the tombs of Nekhen, which were dated to the Naqada I and II periods, were identified as cedar from Lebanon [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hierakonpolis.htm].

[edit] A few comments.....

It looks like eurocentrism is rearing its ugly head again in certain sections of the Foreign Contacts piece. Why would something like recessed panel architecture have to be foreign in origin? Couldn't it be simply independently invented and simply due to indigenous cultural evolution? And writing was definitely not an area of influence since heiroglyphics PREDATE Sumerian cuneiform. I feel like a big deal is being made of foreign influences, like asiatic influences were definitive in the establishment of dynastic egypt. Of course foreign motifs are going to appear in late dynastic times simply due to trade and interaction and even migration, but they weren't wide-scale. The Dynastic Race theory shouldn't even be mentioned here, because it was torn apart so many times and so long ago. Peace. Get back to me. Teth22 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The material you have a problem with is cited by the preeminant scholar in the western hemisphere. If you have a problem with the state of scholarship, become a scholar and publish things yourself, don't try to get your views promulgated on wikipedia. This is not a forum for discussion of what is true or not, and statements in the article do not need to be defended here as true, but simply as cited by Reliable Sources, which they are. Concerning your objection to the Dynastic race theory, does not the text explicitly say "In recent years however, this theory has been discounted."?
Quite simply, although you may call this "Eurocentric," it is the state of modern legitimate scholarship. Eurocentric has become nothing but a pejorative term used to silence the fact that scholarship is inconveniently entierly contrary to what some would like it to say. Thanatosimii 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)