posted 23 December 2003 10:57 PM            

"Bone and ivory tags, pottery vessels, and clay seal impressions bearing hieroglyphs unearthed at Abydos, 300 miles south of Cairo, have been dated to between 3400 and 3200 B.C., making them the oldest known examples of Egyptian writing. The tags, each measuring 2 by 1 1/2 centimeters and containing between one and four glyphs, were discovered by excavators from the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo in the predynastic ruler Scorpion I's tomb. Institute director Günter Dreyer says the tags and ink-inscribed pottery vessels have been dated to 3200 B.C. based upon contextual and radiocarbon analysis. The seal impressions, from various tombs, date even further back, to 3400 B.C. These dates challenge the commonly held belief that early logographs, pictographic symbols representing a specific place, object, or quantity, first evolved into more complex phonetic symbols in Mesopotamia.

Denise Schmandt-Besserat, Professor at the University of Texas at Austin, explains as follows the reasons why it is now held that writing spread from Mesopotamia to Egypt. Mesopotamia provides data that illustrates the step by step evolution of data processing from 8000 B.C. to the present. Clay counters of many shapes - tokens - were used to count goods in early agricultural communities from 8000 to 3000 B.C.. When the Mesopotamian script written on clay tablets appeared, coinciding with the rise of the state, about 3200 B.C., it visibly evolved from the token system. Tokens and writing had an identical function. Both served strictly for accounting the same types of goods, namely small cattle, cereals, oil, textiles, etc. The written signs were traced in the shape of tokens, bearing the same markings. The signs were organized using the same order as the previous tokens. Apparently, about 3100 B.C., the Mesopotamian state administration required that the names of the individuals, that either received or gave the goods stipulated, be entered on the accounting tables. These personal names could not easily be written logographically without the risk of overburdening the system. In order to solve the problem, the accountants resorted to writing individuals' names phonetically. This brought writing to a new course that, in the course of centuries or even millennia, developed into the cuneiform syllabaries (1 sign = 1 syllable) used by the Babylonians and Assyrians.

Thus, Mesopotamia is different from Egypt, where writing seems to appear suddenly, in that an uninterrupted sequence of data in Mesopotamia illustrates how accounting developed, requiring more and more sophisticated devices to deal with larger amounts of data with greater precision. Because Egypt provides yet no indication of any antecedents to writing, it was logical to assume that phonetic writing leap-frogged from Mesopotamnia to Egypt about 3100 B.C.. The borrowing was supported by the fact that the Egyptian rebus principle was identical to that of Mesopotamia and therefore seemed to be connected. Furthermore, there is evidence for a strong Mesopotamian influence in Egypt in the late fourth millennium B.C.. This is attested by the presence of typical Mesopotamian features of various nature. For example, a certain style of monumental architecture, the use of cylinder seals, specific decorative patterns featuring intertwined fantastic animals, and even the actual representation of the Mesopotamian Priest-king displayed with his unique status symbols. Because the reverse is not true, namely there is no trace of an Egyptian presence in Mesopotamia at that time, all seems to point to a flow of ideas from Mesopotamia to Egypt.

The bone and ivory tags discovered at Abydos also documented the quantity and geographic origin of particular commodities. The labels, originally attached to boxes or containers, had the names of places and institutions involved in the exchange of such goods as grain and fabrics. The older clay seal impressions and ink inscriptions also indicate the origins of different commodities. Such records, says Dreyer, "provide valuable information concerning political organization and resource distribution in predynastic Upper Egypt."

To date, 70 percent of these predynastic hieroglyphs have been translated. According to Jim Allen of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, such early hieroglyphs represent a rebus system, akin to modern Japanese, in which pictures are used according to the way they sound. In early phonetic systems phrases such as "I believe," for example, might be rendered with an eye, a bee, and a leaf. The Abydos hieroglyphs are simple precursors to the complex hieroglyphic forms discovered at later sites such as Metjen and Turin.

posted 27 December 2003 12:12 AM            

Dating study 'means human history rethink'
BBC, 29 June, 2001

A complete rewrite of the history of modern humans could be needed after a breakthrough in archaeological dating techniques. British and American scientists have found radio carbon dating, used to give a rough guide to the age of an object, can be wrong by thousands of years...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1413000/1413326.stm

According to Palermo Stone Chronology, which is the ONLY true and real most ancient chronology ever known to mankind based on a real archaeological discovery, the Egyptian Hieroglyphic writing appeared more than 11000 years earlier to dynastic era (nearly 3100BC). They don't believe because simply they are not able to read abc of AE Hieroglyphs yet!!

Alsaadawi 4

posted 27 December 2003 10:46 AM            

There are some new ways to date objects but they are far from being accepted in the scientific community. One such is reading the radioactivity in sand grains or other objects giving a date where the grain was last exposed to the sun. An example of its use is were wasp nests which cover cave paintings are examined to give youngest posible date for the paintings. Some remarkable dates have been offered, which do not correspond with current carbon dating.

Its an interesting subject as it would change many aspects of history.

posted 27 December 2003 11:02 AM            

One thing about the article though, they tested limestone, which would be 10s of thousands or more likely 100s of thousands of years old, with a difference of only thousands of years. I dont think you can compare a carbon dated limestone deposit of this age with atrifacts of only thousands of years old, when it has already been admited that deposits of 10s of thousands and 100s of thousands of years already have a varience indicator the same as the varience being indicated in the study. The % varience if it is consistant would mean only decades or hundreds of years difference for earlier objects such as egyptian artifacts. Which is within the current varience for carbon dating.

posted 27 December 2003 11:20 AM            

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/

posted 27 December 2003 12:04 PM            

The findings are contreversial,but there has been some evidence that A-group Nubians in Qustal Sudan pocessed a type of proto-writting. This evidence remains contreversial,and was found by a scholar named Professor Bruce Willams. Some real investigation must go into their interptation.

posted 27 December 2003 12:09 PM            

The people also found some inscrptions dedicated with Het-Heru. We also know that the deity Het-Heru,and many others were depicted as a Cow. This is also the oldest relgious structure in Africa,and predates other Megalithic sites throughout the world.

posted 27 December 2003 12:45 PM            

Ausar I dont remember reading that Bruce williams considered the writing an earlier form of writing preceding Egypt, In fact this quote from Mr Williams himslf.

Dr. Williams said the dating is based on correlations of artistic styles in the Nubian pottery with similar styles in predynastic Egyptian pottery, which is relatively well dated.

He said some of the Nubian artifacts bore disconnected symbols resembling those of Egyptian hieroglyphics that were not readable.

"They were on their way to literacy," Dr. Williams said, "probably quite close to Egypt in this respect."

This is refering to pottery recovered at Qustul cemetery by Keith C. Seele. later to be studied by Williams.

Have you got something there that is more recent that has Williams changing his view?

posted 27 December 2003 10:38 PM            

Ausar, when talking about ancient lingual inscriptions we are not speaking about some written fragments or scraps here or there. I'm talking about MASSIVE and gigantic well organized and stable ancient writings that followed strict writing and reading rules for Thousands of years. Please, show me where can I find some comparable massive ancient writings that predate the Egyptian Pyramid Texts for example and still have far pre-historic roots without any change?

According to the latest discoveries on Giza Plateau the Archeologists discovered some pre-dynastic tombs for 'normal' people that date back to nearly 5500 years BC according to their statements. Wonderfully, they discovered that some mummies were submitted to some 'advanced' surgeries. Moreover they found the same well-known Egyptian Hieroglyphs referring to names and other texts!

The same happened in Abydos where the American Archeologists found 4 wonderful huge barges that date back to some far pre-dynastic era (nearly 4500 years BC). They said it bears some remarks of 'advanced' Marine Industries!

Then could one imagine what 'advanced' far pre-dynastic surgeries and marine industries mean?!! And under what historical era or chronology should we classify them bearing in mind that the declared dates should fall under the same claimed carbon tests!!

posted 28 December 2003 07:41 AM            

The Sphinx is a little different however, as it can not be dated by these old nor new systems. The rock itself can certainly be dated but that will not provide a date for the rock having been carved. The only reasonable suggestions I have seen for the dating of the sphinx are the water marks.

Sorry Alsaadawi, I know you didn’t say that. But I think the way the author wrote the article is very misleading. Again they made the comparisment against Limestone deposits, which are significantly much older than any artifact. Most are infact 100s of thousands if not millions of years old, as I have found out. And radiocarbon dating of these ages already carry a + or- of thousands of years error margine. As the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.

It may be that the new system is more accurate but I do not believe it would show such large differences when dating Egyptian artifacts, because the margin of error decreases significantly with age.

posted 28 December 2003 02:02 PM            

Please let me cast here only few professional opinions of some highly respected scientists:

**Thanks to the work of Egyptologist John Anthony West and DR Robert Schoch , Professor of Geology at Boston University , we now know that there are serious scientific objection to the presently accepted dating of the Great Sphinx of Egypt .There have been an evidence - extensively outlined elsewhere - which cast fatal doubt on the orthodox Egyptological theory attributing the monument to the Forth Dynasty Pharaoh Khafre ( ruled 2520 - 2494 BC ) .
It is sufficient to state, as at least one senior member of the profession has been honest enough to admit, that " there is not a single ancient inscription which connects the Sphinx to Khafre " .

The monuments , in other words , is anonymous stone . It is carved in one piece out of the bedrock of the Giza plateau , although later patched up with repair blocks ( in both ancient and modern times ) is still recognizable in essence as a gigantic monolith .
As such it is not susceptible to carbon - dating , which can measure the age of organic materials only . Indeed just as there is not not a single ancient inscription concerning the Sphinx so also there is not a single test presently in existence which can tell us accurately when the monument was carved .
Theoretically that could have happened at any time after the limestone of the Giza plateau was originally laid down by former oceans tens of millions of years ago ...

Professor Robert Schoch´s work helps to narrow the search by establishing a minimum age for the SPHINX . But schoch´s finding s are fiercely controversial because they set that minimum age very high , at 7000 years or older - i.e. deep in predynastic times , at least 2500 years earlier than the date accepted by Egyptologists . The Boston geology professor is , however , unrepentant :

I´ve been told over and over again that the people of Egypt , as far as we know , did not have either the technology or the social orgamization to cut out the core body of the Sphinx in the pre - dynastic times ...
However , I don´t see it as being my problem as a geologist . I´m not seeking to shift the burden , but it´s really up to Egyptologists and archaeologists to figure out who carved it .
If my findings are in conflict with their theory about the rise of civilization then maybe its time for them to re - evauate that theory . I´m not saying that the Sphinx was build by Atlanteans , or people from mars , or exsra - terrestrials . I´m just following the science where it leads me , and it leads me to conclude that the Sphinx was build much earlie than previously thought .

Schoch , a world expert on the weathering of limestone , bases this conclution on a careful study of the erosion of the Sphinx . He believes ( and hundred of other geologists have endorsed his view ) that the grat monument could not possibly have been carved as late as 2500 BC . This is so because it bears the unmistakable marks of " precipitation - induced weathering " , deep vertical fissures and undulating , horizontal coves that could only been caused by thousands of years of heavy rain . Rain that must have fallen on the Shpinx after it was carved .

The problem is that in 2500 BC Egypt was as bone dry as it is today , getting less that an inch of rain a year . Palaeoclimatologist , however , are able to tell us , very accurately , when the weather was wetter . Their conclusion is that the last time sufficient rain fell in the eastern sahara to have caused characteristic weathering of the Sphinx was between 7000 and 5000 BC .

It is because of the evidence , choosing the most recent and conservative date possible , that Professor Shoch arrives at his minimum age for the Sphinx of 7000 years . His colleague John Anthony West , on the other hand , thinks that the monument may be much older ( a possibility by no means ruled out by the weathering studies ) .

My conjecture is that th whole riddle is linked in some way to the legendary civilizations spoken of in all the mythologies of the world . You know . that there were great catastrophes , that a few people survived and went wandering around the earth and that a bit of knowledge was preserved here , a bit there ...

My hunch is that the Sphinx is linked to all that . If I were asked to place a bet I´d say that the end of the Last Ice Age and is probably older that 10.000 BC , perhaps even older that 15.000 BC . My conviction - actually it´s more that a conviction . It that it´s vastly old ...**

This short essay is published here:
http://alvidk.tripod.com/planetx/id30.html

I'm not with or against Carbon dating but I'm trying to investigate all possible scientific means to have a good idea about the real dating of the most important human monuments. According to some opinions of professional Egyptian Egyptologists the Carbon dating has confirmed the chronology of Manethon which states that the first dynasty dates back to year 5619-BC!

posted 28 December 2003 05:07 PM            

Dr. Alsadawi,could you provide references for me to look further in this. Were these findings natural mummies or mummies that was mumified in the sand naturally.

''The same happened in Abydos where the American Archeologists found 4 wonderful huge barges that date back to some far pre-dynastic era (nearly 4500 years BC). They said it bears some remarks of 'advanced' Marine Industries! ''

Who were these archeologist,and what was the name of the reports?

''The problem is that in 2500 BC Egypt was as bone dry as it is today , getting less that an inch of rain a year . Palaeoclimatologist , however , are able to tell us , very accurately , when the weather was wetter . Their conclusion is that the last time sufficient rain fell in the eastern sahara to have caused characteristic weathering of the Sphinx was between 7000 and 5000 BC .''

This is not true. the Sahara has been full of vegitation and life since 10,000 B.C.-1,500 B.C. Even during the Roman times there were still areas in the Sahara that produced bontiful agricultural yeilds.

The Sahara is still expanding into other regions of Africa like Senegal where the fringes of the forests know have Saharan sand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/390097.stm

''''My hunch is that the Sphinx is linked to all that . If I were asked to place a bet I´d say that the end of the Last Ice Age and is probably older that 10.000 BC , perhaps even older that 15.000 BC . My conviction - actually it´s more that a conviction . It that it´s vastly old ...**''

Dr. Alsaadawi,can you show a civlization that existed anywhere in the world that could carve out something like the Her-am-akhet? Not even region in the world was under an iceage,and many areas like the Sahara around this same time period was abundant with life and even many streams. This culture was called the African Aquatic that had pastorial and fishing economies.

The only canadate for a civlization that moved large amounts of stone during this period is Malta. I have yet to prove that people from Malta built the sphinx.

posted 28 December 2003 05:54 PM            

The change in African
Africa Just before younger Dryas

“Younger Dryas approx. 10,800-10,200 14C y.a. At the same time as a cold, dry period affected Europe, Africa also seems to have experienced a relatively arid phase. In North Africa, for example, the water levels of Lake Chad fell, although Thomas & Thorp (1992) suggest that the climate may not have been much drier than at present. The levels of east African lakes fell during the Younger Dryas (Williamson et al. 1993) (apparently gradually over several hundred years), and there was a reduction in forest pollen in the mountains. In central and west Africa, there may have been a slight forest regression (Hamilton 1988). Carbon and nitrogen isotopic composition and bulk organic matter in sediment cores from Lake Bosumtwi, Ghana, have revealed a dry phase coincident with the Younger Dryas (Talbot & Johannessen 1992).
It is possible that parts of southern Africa were also affected. Linear dunes may have reactivated in the area north of the Orange River (Steven Stokes pers. comm. Feb '96), and at least some dates for dune activity in northern Botswana seem to fall within this age range (Stokes et al. 1997), suggesting that there may have been quite extreme desert conditions in the area at that time. However, there is a considerable error range in the dates obtained from the optical dating methods used, so the dune activity might potentially have been a couple of thousand years before, or perhaps even slightly after, the Younger Dryas. Probably the best case for it being Younger Dryas in age is that it correlates with a general pattern of events seen elsewhere. Younger Dryas cooling has been found from the Atlantic coast, from isotopic variations in shells (Cohen et al. 1992), and Partridge (1997) reports unpublished work on ostrich eggshell isotopes which suggest a similar picture inland in southern Africa.
Indicators off the coast of east Africa suggest that very pronounced weakening of the summer monsoon system occurred at this time, corresponding to the scattered indicators of aridity (Zonneveld et al. 1997), and indirectly suggesting that the aridity may have affected all areas of Africa that get most of their rainfall from the summer rains. The strength of the monsoon intensity at this time was similar to what it had been during the general period of the Last Glacial Maximum, but not as low as it had reached during the weakest phase between 14,000 and 12,500 14C years ago”.
(map) http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/NEW_MAPS/africa3.gif

Just after younger Dryas
10,000 14C y.a. After the Younger Dryas, conditions became moister. The vegetation zones of the Sahara seem to have lain in similar positions to those of the present-day (Lezine 1989), although Thomas & Thorp suggest from the level of Lake Chad that conditions were moister-than-present at around 10,000 14C y.a. Forest in central Africa continued to return, reaching the equivalent of its present range and density about 9,500 14C y.a. (Hamilton 1988).
Map http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/NEW_MAPS/africa5.gif

SAHARA
(dates in Guo et al are given in 14C years ago on the left, approximate calibrated of 'real' dates are given on the right)
Moist 9,500-8,200 14C ya (10,400-9,100 ya)
Slight drying 8,200-8,000 14C ya (9,100-8,900 ya)
Moist 8,000-7,000 14C ya (8,900-7,900 ya)
Moderately dry 7,000-5,700 14C ya (7,900-6,500 ya)
Moist 5,700-4,000 14C ya (6,500-4,500 ya)
Very dry - as dry as at present - 4,000-3,800 14C ya (4,500-4,100 ya)
Slightly moister than present 3,800-3,500 14C ya (4,100-3,700 ya)
After 3,500 14C ya (3,700 ya). Remaining about as dry as at present

posted 29 December 2003 05:45 AM            

Ausar, here is one message I have received. I hope you may find some good information. You know it happens that some new news are circulated within some Egyptian cultural clubs:

THE BIG NEWS

Two stories seem to qualify as big news, although both are technically
followups. The first is quite a bit of coverage on the 5,000-year-old
Abydos boats (watch the wrap):
http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/20001031/hi_royalboat.html http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/releases/2000/11/001101065713.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/31/science/31GRAV.html http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,29499,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1002000/1002146.stm

>>Were these findings natural mummies or mummies that was mumified in the sand naturally<<

As I remember the findings were for natural mummies for normal people. I have to check my database for this article.
http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/archive.htm

posted 30 December 2003 02:07 PM            

Granted it is no were near the same time frame, but the ability to create with stone tools was no less 1000 years ago by the Easter Islanders than it was 5000 or more ago in AE.

posted 30 December 2003 06:12 PM            

From my knwoleadge of pre-dyanstic Egypt,I find the date of 10,500 B.C. hard to swallow. Perhaps it could have occured in early Dyanstic Egypt around the same time of Djoser,but not that early.

I am curious about how populated the Giza plateau was during this time frame. Most of the poipulation in pre-dyanstic Egypt has always been distributed around the Southern part of Egypt from Luxor to Aswan;In Lower Egypt it has always been from the opening of the Fayium to the Delta.

posted 30 December 2003 07:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
I am curious about how populated the Giza plateau was during this time frame. Most of the poipulation in pre-dyanstic Egypt has always been distributed around the Southern part of Egypt from Luxor to Aswan;In Lower Egypt it has always been from the opening of the Fayium to the Delta.

---

ausar, the people who built the sphinx did not necessarily have to be from the giza region. if it was a national project, the builders could have come from anywhere. a town was built on the giza plateau to support the workers. if anywhere, i'd think that would be the place to try and find out how old the monument is.