posted 06 March 2005 04:53 PM            

Even amongst the rural Egyptians today is the corn aruseh. This is usually a corn bride that resides over the harvest. One interesting pratice was that rural farmers would throw their grain over this doll to ensure fertility of the harvest. You might see such a corn bride over the area shops in rural parts of Egypt.

If you will email me Djehuti, I will send you a article about the corn aruseh in modern Egypt.

posted 06 March 2005 05:27 PM            

But what do you think of the agricultural male's sacrifice? There seemed to be little to no evidence of blood sacrifices in the remains of early Neolithic sites where women held sway, but in agricultural societies where men presided, sacrifices were prevalent. There is evidence that suggests human sacrifice took place in early dynastic China, in Mesopotamia, and even in the tombs of pre-dynastic to early dynastic Pharaohs. Even later on in other parts of Africa, divine-kings continued to make sacrifices. Some Sudanese peoples like the Shilluk and Anuak have rain-maker kings or chiefs who at the end of their reign would sacrifice themselves to bring fertility, and even in some of the early West African kingdoms kings would sacrifice their enemies to ensure their kingdoms prosperity especially agriculturally.

Do you think this belief had something to do with the Osiris story?

What is your e-mail address anyway?

posted 06 March 2005 05:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

There is evidence that suggests human sacrifice took place in early dynastic China, in Mesopotamia, and even in the tombs of pre-dynastic to early dynastic Pharaohs.

---

posted 06 March 2005 05:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Pertaining to Early dynastic Pharaohs, what evidence is that?

---

I forgot where exactly, but I remember reading an article which discussed evidence that servants of the Pharaoh were sacrificed to accompany him to the afterlife. In later dynastic times these servants were replaced with ushabtis. Most importantly however was the Sed ritual which was supposed to regenerate or revitalize the pharaoh once his reign reaches a certain period. If it was not for this ritual, the king might have had to do what the Shilluk kings did and sacrifice himself.

posted 06 March 2005 07:26 PM            

The whole conflict between pastoralists and agriculturalists could be found all throughout the Old Testament of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. One may recognize that agriculture as well as the urban culture that was based on it are given both feminine and negative connotations. Cities were sometimes called "women" whose protective walls were like a "womb." Everything that had to do with the urban life like certain technology such as weights and measures are degraded. All throughout the Old Testament it would seem that God favors the life of the pastoral nomad than that of the agricultural sedentarist. For example, in the story of the tower of Babel, when the peoples of the world were united and began to dwell in a metropolitan community, God ruined it and split the peoples apart. They were made into wanderers. The patriarch Abraham was called by God to leave his home in the city of Sumer and "go forth" out into the world to wander until he finds the Promised Land. The important thing wasn't the land itself but Abraham's journey there. His wife Sarah seemed to be of high status, in fact I think the Bible even mentioned that Abraham's possessions and status was derived from her, but as soon as they leave all of that changes and Abraham takes full charge while Sarah is eventually obscured in the story.
When Moses tries to lead his people to the Promised Land they are condemned to exile and wandering. The Ark of the Covenant seems to be kept safe if it is wandering which is probably why when it was settled in the temple of Jerusalem, the temple collapsed so many times.

posted 30 March 2005 12:30 PM            

African Archaeology
Edited by Ann Brower Stahl

Holocene Occupations
By Joanna Casey

"Microliths appear very much earlier in Africa than they do in Europe and Asia. The earliest known appearance is around 40,000 years ago(ky)at matupi cave in central Africa."

The Romance of Farming
By Katharina Neumann

posted 30 March 2005 12:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:

African Archaeology
Edited by Ann Brower Stahl

The Romance of Farming
By Katharina Neumann

"Africa presents the **greatest example** of the "vast middle ground" in the transitional zone between foragers and agriculturalists. Given the intimate knowledge of wild resources which has a long tradition in Africa dating back to the Pleistocene, it is conceivable that some "low-level food production" was practiced long before domesticates appear in the archaeological record."

---

Thought Posts:

The Prehistory Of Egypt
Edited by Beatrix Midant-Reynes

"Given that the Nile Delta is located directly between the Levant and North Africa, it must have played an esential role in the development of microlithic cultures, and some scholars argue that the Mushabian complex in the Sinai might have originated in the Delta......With a probable 'center of differentiation' in the south and evidence for **difussion** in the north, the Nile valley, between 20,000 and 12,000 BP, was not only part of a major techno-cultural process but was one of the **driving forces**.

posted 05 April 2005 05:51 PM            

"Paleolithic Egyptians, such as those who used Wadi Kubanniya campsites about 20,000 years ago, exploited fish, migrant birds, wild cattle, gazelle, and hartebeest, and used grindstones to prepare a toxic tuber (Cypres rotundus) for leaching prior to consumption."

Thought Writes:

Another interesting fact from Bellwoods book is that he charts the southern boundary of the sahara around Dakhleh and the northern limit of the Tsetse Fly zone around Kadero. Hence the bulk of Africas population during the Neolithic period (8,000 to 3,000 B.C.) would be packed between these two latitudes from the Atlantic to the Red Sea.

posted 23 October 2005 07:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:

Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, edited by J.O. Vogel
Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

"The rock shelter of Gogoshiis Qabe in Somalia excavated by S.A. Brandt is an especially interesting burial site dating to the EARLY HOLOCENE. One person, or perhaps several people, had been buried with 13 pairs of Kudu horns, as well as a number of single horns. Brandt reasoned that the dead had been given **SPECIAL CEREMONIAL TREATMENT** because of status that was achieved during life, perhaps in regard to exceptional hunting abilities.....It is also interesting to observe that some of the Gogoshiis Qabe people were buried under mounds of rocks, while others were not. Such differences in burial treatment may reflect differences within social group. There is also an example of what anthropologists term secondary burial. In this case, the individual most likely died at some other location, and the remains of the person were subsequently reburied at the rock shelter. In short, this person may have been buried twice.
At Lothagam (Lake Turkana), in the southeast burial concentration, almost all of the Early Holocene people were buried in a flexed position on their left side facing east. The tendency to inter people in a specific position may be indicative of religious practices centering on facing the dead toward the rising sun, and positioning on the left side may also have been **SYMBOLOCALLY** important. While most of the people at Lothagam were not buried with grave goods, one woman was buried with a necklace made from ostrich-eggshell beads, and two other individuals were found with obsidian microliths. The obsidian may well have been an important nonlocal raw material and was therefore, placed in the grave for use in an afterlife."

---

Thought Posts:

http://www.answers.com/topic/neolithic-revolution

Neolithic Revolution
The Neolithic Revolution was a term first suggested in the 1920s by the Australian archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe as a description of the switch made by ancient peoples from nomadic, hunter-gatherer behaviour to a settled, agrarian way of life, during the neolithic period. It was the first of a series of agricultural revolutions that have punctuated human history.

Agriculture gave humans more control over their food supply, but required settled occupation of territory and encouraged larger social groups. A key factor in this change, Childe considered, was that global climates at the end of the last ice age were warmer and drier, making plants more efficient at producing crops but encouraging settlement near water sources. Paleoclimatology and the study of sub-fossil pollen demonstrated that climates had actually turned wetter, and the forces governing Childe's "Neolithic Revolution" were revised.

Believed to have occurred somewhere in southwest Asia around 8000 BC 7000 BC, the Neolithic Revolution has been called the single most important change in the history of humanity. Living in one spot would have more easily permitted the accrual of personal possessions and an attachment to certain areas of land. From such a position, it is argued, prehistoric people were able to stockpile food to survive lean times and trade unwanted surpluses with others. Once trade and a secure food supply were established, populations could grow, and society would have diversified into food producers and artisans. Such relative complexity would have required some form of social organisation to work efficiently and so it is likely that populations which had such organisation, perhaps such as that provided by religion were better prepared and more successful. Also, during this time property ownership became increasingly important to all people.

Ultimately, Childe argued that this growing social complexity, all rooted in the original decision to settle, led to a second Urban Revolution in which the first cities were built. Recently, Ian Hodder, who is directing the excavations at Çatalhöyük has suggested that the earliest settled communities, and the Neolithic revolution they represent, actually preceded the development of agriculture, He has been developing the ideas first expressed by Jacques Cauvin, the excavator of the Natufian settlement at Mureybet in northern Syria, that the Neolithic revolution was the result of a revolutionary change in the human psychology, a "revolution of symbols" which led to new beliefs about the world and shared community rituals embodied in corpulent female figurines and the methodical assembly of aurochs horns.

posted 23 October 2005 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Paleoclimatology and the study of sub-fossil pollen demonstrated that climates had actually turned wetter, and the forces governing Childe's "Neolithic Revolution" were revised.

Believed to have occurred somewhere in southwest Asia around 8000 BC 7000 BC, the Neolithic Revolution has been called the single most important change in the history of humanity. Living in one spot would have more easily permitted the accrual of personal possessions and an attachment to certain areas of land. From such a position, it is argued, prehistoric people were able to stockpile food to survive lean times and trade unwanted surpluses with others. Once trade and a secure food supply were established, populations could grow, and society would have diversified into food producers and artisans. Such relative complexity would have required some form of social organisation to work efficiently and so it is likely that populations which had such organisation, perhaps such as that provided by religion were better prepared and more successful. Also, during this time property ownership became increasingly important to all people.

---

...more like "Neolithic Revolutions", since, as pointed out before, agriculture which is a feature of the "Neolithic Revolution", has been "independently" developed in certain regions of the world, none in Europe, where this economy was spread from southwest Asia. I suppose the use of the term Neo-"lithic", something you brought attention to earlier, has been justified perhaps on the basis that certain new developments of "lithic" tools helped to facilitate switch/transition from food gathering to cultivation on a smaller scale, which eventually grew in scale.

quote:

---

Ultimately, Childe argued that this growing social complexity, all rooted in the original decision to settle, led to a second Urban Revolution in which the first cities were built. Recently, Ian Hodder, who is directing the excavations at Çatalhöyük has suggested that the earliest settled communities, and the Neolithic revolution they represent, actually preceded the development of agriculture, ...that the Neolithic revolution was the result of a revolutionary change in the human psychology, a "revolution of symbols" which led to new beliefs about the world and shared community rituals embodied in corpulent female figurines and the methodical assembly of aurochs horns.

---

Makes sense to me, that settlement need not be brought about by agriculture!