posted 05 March 2005 02:42 PM            

Nearly 80 years ago, the British archaeologist V. Gordon Childe championed a theory of what he called a revolution in food production during the Neolithic age. Childe proposed that hunting- and-gathering groups in the Middle East had been the first people to grow crops, raise animals for food, and live year-round in villages- around 10,000 years ago. In his scenario, farmers then spread into prehistoric Europe, where they spurred the equally revolutionary rise of modern civilization.

Childe's ideas triggered a scientific squabble over the roots of agriculture that has produced two polarized camps. Childe-friendly researchers hold that expanding populations of Middle Eastern farmers moved across Europe and replaced hunter-gatherers already living there. This massive migration is often portrayed as a wave of advance, in which farming populations inexorably annexed new chunks of land at a rate of about 1 kilometer annually as they cut a path northwest through Europe. In the process, they overwhelmed any hunter-gatherers who happened to be in their way.

A contrasting approach, which has arisen over the past 20 years, pegs the Neolithic transition to a movement largely of ideas, not people. In this scenario, European hunter-gatherers slowly adopted agricultural practices on their own or after brief encounters with encroaching Middle Eastern farmers. Thus, over millennia, the Europeans picked up farming techniques as they continued their nomadic ways. Proponents of this theory suspect that crops and livestock initially were eaten in Europe only on special occasions or during rituals.

This debate has now taken a novel turn. Some anthropologists are proposing that farmers spread from the Middle East into Europe via a convoluted series of prehistoric migrations. Those population pulses often covered much larger swaths of land in much shorter periods than would have been possible with a single, slowly advancing wave of cultivators.

Rapid shifts to agriculture then revolutionized social life across Europe. As cultivators came to occupy the stomping grounds of people who had long thrived as hunter-gatherers, the choice became a stark one: Farm or die.

The seeds of agriculture's eventual dominance may have been sown surprisingly early. Evidence at a Stone Age site in Israel shows that the people who lived there began to lay the groundwork for farming at least 23,000 years ago, although crop cultivation in that region didn't begin until roughly 13,000 years later. Agriculture's ancient forerunners gathered and ate seeds from grasses and wild cereals such as wheat and barley (SAT; 7/24/04, p. 61), as a substantial part of their diets. These Stone Age people didn't plant seeds, though.

Archaeological finds indicate that as conditions became colder and drier between 11,000 and 10,200 years ago, Middle Eastern groups that had founded large settlements a few millennia earlier left those outposts for a mobile, foraging lifestyle. When the weather finally turned warmer and wetter, they quickly built villages and cultivated an array of crops.

According to the new theories on agriculture's roots, this is when crop-savvy populations in the East launched a succession of smallscale treks into Europe. They often sailed vessels along the northern Mediterranean coast before reaching islands such as Cyprus or heading up major rivers such as the Danube. In some regions, farmers replaced hunter-gatherers; in other areas, natives and newcomers lived side by side.

Around 6,000 years ago, farming reached northwestern Europe and quickly reshaped the social landscape. Within a century or two, the farmers' way of life became dominant. Many hunter-gatherers who had long inhabited the region faced a wrenching change as they adopted the strange new culture of agriculture.

"The idea that foragers made a seamless, gradual transition to farming is unrealistic and has no sound evidence to support it," says Harvard University archaeologist Ofer Bar-Yosef, who contributed to a special supplement of the Aug.-Oct. 2004 Current Anthropology on the topic of agricultural revolutions of Neolithic Europe and the Middle East. Those transformations triggered the growth of complex societies and religious beliefs, Bar-Yosef contends.

GAME FOR CHANGE The immediate ancestors of the first farmers in the Middle East belonged to the Natufian culture, which lasted from about 12,800 to 10,200 years ago. The remains of game animals at four Natufian sites in Israel provide clues to what was apparently a bumpy transition to agriculture, says anthropologist Natalie D. Munro of the University of Connecticut in Storrs.

Throughout much of their existence, Natufians avidly hunted gazelle as well as small animals such as tortoises, partridges, and hares. Natufians inhabited permanent settlements or base camps in numbers large enough to necessitate hunting a wide variety of animals, in Munro's view.

The Natufians' hunting preferences changed around 11,000 years ago, as an 800-year stretch of cold, dry weather winnowed the populations of many animals in their home regions. Natufian numbers also fell with the temperature, Munro proposes. The region's inhabitants, who had congregated in large settlements, returned to their old ways of foraging from a series of temporary camps. Animal remains at these sites bolster that scenario, indicating that ancient residents still ate gazelle when they could find them, but that small prey had disappeared from their menu.

As many Middle Easterners had done for millennia, the Natufians continued to collect and eat wild cereals. Intimate knowledge of these plants and their growing seasons set the stage for cultivation, says Munro. "When climatic conditions improved around 10,000 years ago, cereal agriculture was adopted immediately," she contends.

Emily L. Jones of the University of Washington in Seattle calls this theory "an elegant and realistic alternative" to the assumption by many Childe-influenced researchers that people stabilized food supplies amid harsh weather by moving directly from foraging to farming.

Brian Hayden of Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, suspects that social and political changes, not climate change, prompted the move to agriculture in the Middle East. He notes that during the cold, dry conditions, Natufians apparently organized hunting parties to nab gazelles. This indicates that communities still needed to feed large numbers of people, Hayden says. Meat was primarily consumed at ritual feasts, in his view. Prehistoric Native Americans often hunted to stock up on meat for feasts, he notes.

As climate conditions improved, expanding Natufian societies eventually became laboratories of agriculture and animal domestication, Hayden theorizes.

GROWTH INDUSTRY - New research suggest that agriculture, including wheat cultivation, made rapid advances in the ancient Middle East and Europe.

WESTWARD HO After thus sprouting on the Mediterranean's eastern edge, agriculture set in motion the search for new expanses of land, according to the latest thinking. Early farmers had no master plan for migrating into Europe. Different groups simply moved into the continent in a haphazard fashion.

One new line of evidence for such migrations comes from an analysis, directed by Sue Colledge of University College London, of preserved crops and weeds at early farming sites. Colledge's team examined data from 166 sites in the Middle East and Europe, many of which have been dated to the agricultural transition period.

So-called founder crops of Neolithic fanners appeared more than 10,000 years ago in the Middle East, according to Colledge's team. These crops consisted of three domesticated cereals-emmer, einkorn, and hulled barley-together with flax and four bean varieties- lentil, pea, bitter vetch, and chickpea.

Over the next 3,000 years, local variations on this basic crop repertoire appeared in central Turkey and then in Cyprus, Crete, and Greece. Agricultural colonists of those areas must have transported grains that they then sowed in fields cleared of wild plants, Colledge asserts. Unlike the weed-strewn farming sites in the Middle East, European sites reveal remains of few weeds.

An increasingly varied set of crops moving from east to west, as documented by Colledge's team, suggests that the migration of early farmers "was not an organized one but more like an infiltration from all parts of the core to all parts of the new area," remarks Mehmet zdogan of Istanbul (Turkey) University.

A new analysis of human skulls excavated at various Neolithic settlements throws an anatomical spotlight on farmers' infiltrations into Europe. Two British researchers, Ron Pinhasi of the University of Surrey Roehampton in London and Mark Pluciennik of the University of Leicester, measured and compared the shapes of 231 adult skulls from 54 sites in the Middle East and Europe.

Initial farming groups in the Middle East and Turkey differed considerably from each other in cranial shape, Pinhasi and Pluciennik find. Signature physical traits in prehistoric communities across that region reflect the growth of largely independent agricultural populations, they assert.

A small core of cultivators from central Turkey first tookagriculture westward, the researchers propose. Striking anatomical similarities link early farmers in central Turkey to people who, around 8,000 years ago, began growing crops in Greece and nearby parts of southeastern Europe.

Agriculture then gradually caught on in Mediterranean regions farther to the west, as local foragers mingled with various bands of incoming farmers, Pinhasi and Pluciennik contend. This process yielded many variations in cranial shape among these farmers as well as some commonalities between their skulls and those of hunter- gatherers who lived in the region, they say.

The new cranial findings are consistent with many simultaneous incursions of farmers into Europe, remarks Joo Zilho of the Portuguese Institute of Archaeology in Lisbon. In 2001, Zilho's analysis of farming settlements in western Europe indicated that the most-securely dated ones were built in a period lasting just 100 years or so approximately 7,400 years ago. From that narrow window of time, he estimates that it took no more than six generations for farming to spread to Portugal from what's now central Italy. Only colonists who sailed vessels along the Mediterranean coast and up European rivers could have settled such a vast area so rapidly, in Zilho's opinion.

In the past several years, other researchers have uncovered a geographic patchwork of genetic types among modern Europeans. These researchers have generally interpreted this evidence as reflecting the replacement of Neolithic hunter-gatherers by many different groups of farmers. Such genetic data could instead have resulted from breeding within geographically isolated populations of both hunter-gatherers and farmers, Pinhasi and Pluciennik caution. That possibility would support the gradual-change scenario.

A NEW WORLD Agriculture's spread may have ignited social revolutions from southeastern Europe to the continent's northwestern fringes. Archaeological evidence now shows that, about 6,000 years ago, a village lifestyle of farming and animal raising swept through what are now England, Ireland, and southern Scandinavia, says Peter Rowley-Conwy of the University of Durham in England.

"The rapidity of change must have been traumatic for huntergatherers who inhabited those regions," he says. "Agriculture's appearance in northwestern Europe represented a massive social and economic wave of disruption."

Rowly-Conwy's view clashes with a theory popular among archaeologists, many of whom regard Neolithic farm life as having gradually emerged among local hunter-gatherers throughout much of Europe. As these people grew more numerous and expanded their efforts to obtain food, social classes formed and new religious beliefs appeared, according to this view. That led to early attempts to cultivate fields as well as the construction of ceremonial structures and elaborate graves beginning around 6,000 years ago.

However, no archaeological finding indicates that hunter- gatherers in northwestern Europe gradually increased in numbers or in social complexity, Rowley-Conwy asserts. Various lines of evidence instead suggest that agricultural settlements sprang up at that time throughout northwestern Europe, he says.

Newly arrived farmers first felled trees in small patches of forest. In clearings framed by stone walls, they built wooden houses, cultivated fields, and raised animals for meat and daily products (SN: 2/1/03, p. 67). Northwestern Europe's hunter- gatherers took up farming, fled the region, or starved, Rowley- Conwy proposes.

He notes that at least 175 wooden houses dating to between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago have now been identified in England, Ireland, Denmark, and southern Sweden. The remains of one or more houses typically are among the vestiges of stone walls, irrigation ditches, and tilled fields. Many of the prehistoric dwellings include storage areas holding cultivated cereal grains and remnants of foraged foods such as hazelnuts and wild apples.

Other finds suggest that a similarly rapid move to agriculture occurred farther south, along the coast of what's now Portugal and Spain, says Lawrence G. Straus of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

Still, the evidence cited of agricultural revolutions in Europe draws criticism. For instance, Julian Thomas of the University of Manchester in England doubts that anyone lived in the ancient structures labeled as houses by Rowley-Conwy. Many burned down, probably as part of a Neolithic practice of torching ceremonial buildings that held special foods such as cereal grains and cattle meat, Thomas theorizes. That fits with the theory of agriculture being slowly incorporated into hunter-gatherer culture.

Despite the wealth of new data, Childe's agricultural revolution continues to stand on contested ground.

"The rapidity of change must have been traumatic for hunter- gatherers."

- PETER ROWLEY-CONWY, UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM

Copyright Science Service, Incorporated Feb 5, 2005

Story from REDNOVA NEWS: http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=127779

Published: 2005/02/15 03:00:52 CST

posted 05 March 2005 03:21 PM            

“1. Plant domestication was essentially a lowland adaptation that had a loing period of technological development, beginning as early as 18,000 BP with the use of grinding stones. The domesticated species were native to grassy steppes. Present evidence suggests that domestication is earliest in the Levant and on the Nile, and then spread to Mesopotamia and, finally, Europe.”

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/lifeways/hg_ag/civilization.html

“About 12000 years ago, climatic shifts created open woodlands with nuts that could be harvested and grasses that had the potential to be manipulated and eventually domesticated - dependent upon human influence. Warmer winters would have made year-round settlement in lower areas where grasses grew in abundance possible. Technology toward plant processing equipment such as sickle blades and grinding stones were **ADOPTED**. At this time, permanent settled hamlets and villages began to spread as well paving the way for the emergence of agriculture. The earliest settlements were found in the Levant and the western foothills of the Zagros Mountains in Turkey. Wild wheat and barley grew particularly well in these regions.”

http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/colItems.asp?ID=SEC20021108041412

“Archaeology tells us that gazelles were herded in the Levant in 18,000 BC, while the earliest grinding stones and slabs had appeared by 15,000 BC.”

http://www.arkamani.org/vol_5/archaeology_5/missinglinks.htm

“Several early occupation and settlements were identified in this region. For example the remains of the early settlement of fishermen at Wadi El Kubbaniya, to the north of Aswan, dated to about 18 000 BC.[22] Numerous grinding stone and sickle plates were found in Tushki about 13 000 BC.[23] The inhabitants of the region made use of a geometric microlithic technique, which is considered among the oldest in the world.”

posted 05 March 2005 05:19 PM            

It is now generally recognized by archaeologists that Nile Valley populations were responsible for introducing grind stones and microliths (sickles) to the Levant. It is now generally recognized by geneticists that one of the two predominate haplo-groups found in the “Near East” is the M35/215 lineage which derives from a early Holocene East African source. It is now generally recognized by linguists that the Afro-Asiatic language family which includes Semitic derives from languages spoken in East Africa during the early Holocene. What all of these varied intellectual entities have not done yet is put the pieces of the puzzle together and recognize the East African source of the Near East and European Neolithic. Some have not done so due to tunnel-vision and a lack of multi-disciplinary training. Other have done so for more insidious reasons. Still others will acknowledge this connection if prodded, but recognize the Neolithic as an event instead of a process. This of course is the same sort of thinking that allows Classicists to START “Western Civilization” with Greece instead of the African (Nile Valley) and Asian (Sumerian) complex cultures that preceded and fed Greece in an intellectual sense. The Neolithic is a process that dates back tens of thousands of years, not an event that only began when Eurasian got involved. The transition to microliths in Southern Africa laid the foundation for more advanced hunting and gathering techniques. The development of sickles, grind stones and the use of fire management (slash and burn) to procure more robust harvests among late Pleistocene Africans are major developments in human subsistence patterns. By claiming a linear START or event to human subsistence patterns biased scholars have wrote out the history of all human accomplishments before Eurasian involvement and hence facilitated a “racial” construct.

posted 05 March 2005 05:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Some have not done so due to tunnel-vision and a lack of multi-disciplinary training. Other have done so for more insidious reasons. Still others will acknowledge this connection if prodded, but recognize the Neolithic as an event instead of a process.

---

Indeed. Overall, good analysis!

posted 05 March 2005 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

The Neolithic is a process that dates back tens of thousands of years, not an event that only began when Eurasian got involved.

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 05 March 2005).]

---

Thought Posts:

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

"In The Nile Valley, the most complete record of hunter-forager adaptations, which can provide a model for understanding the preagricultural people, comes from a series of 18,000-year-old camps located in Wadi Kubbaniya near Aswan. These sites indicate that for much of the year, hunter-foragers relied on a few productive, reliable foods supplemented with a broad range of other seasonally available foods. Their staples were catfish, caught in shallow waters during spawning and dried and **STORED**, and wetland plants, especially root foods and particularly tubers of Cyperus rotundus."

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 05 March 2005).]

posted 05 March 2005 05:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:

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

"In The Nile Valley, the most complete record of hunter-forager adaptations, which can provide a model for understanding the preagricultural people, comes from a series of 18,000-year-old camps located in Wadi Kubbaniya near Aswan. These sites indicate that for much of the year, hunter-foragers relied on a few productive, reliable foods supplemented with a broad range of other seasonally available foods. Their staples were catfish, caught in shallow waters during spawning and dried and **STORED**, and wetland plants, especially root foods and particularly tubers of Cyperus rotundus."

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 05 March 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

The importance of food storage in the late Pleistocene highlights a proper understanding of later migratory patterns and events. Food storage facilitates sedentism. Sedentism increases population size. Hence as the genetic record bears out, the population size of late Pleistocene Africa was larger than that of late Pleistocene Eurasia and this is instructive for generating a model for population dispersals prior to the domestication of plants and animals in Europe and the “Near East“.

posted 05 March 2005 05:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

The importance of food storage in the late Pleistocene highlights a proper understanding of later migratory patterns and events. Food storage facilitates sedentism. Sedentism increases population size. Hence as the genetic record bears out, the population size of late Pleistocene Africa was larger than that of late Pleistocene Eurasia and this is instructive for generating a model for population dispersals prior to the domestication of plants and animals in Europe and the “Near East“.

---

Thought Posts:

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/baryo.pdf

"The climatic improvement after 14,500 BP seems to have been responsable for the prescence of more stable human occupations in the steppic and desertic belts. Groups moved into areas that were previously **UNINHABITED**, from the Mediterranean steppe into the margins of the Syro-Arabian desert. Others came form the Nile Valley, creating an interesting social mosaic."

posted 05 March 2005 05:59 PM            

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

"Who were the Late Stone Age people living in eastern Africa before the arrival of early iron Age Bantu-speaking peoples? Early claims by L.S.B. Leakey that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong. It has been demonstrated that the early eastern Africans of Late Stone Age times were Negroids who probably would have physically resembled peoples living in the southern Sudan at present."

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 05 March 2005).]

posted 05 March 2005 06:10 PM            

Tracing Trade: Old World Obsidian Studies

Globalization has become the watch word of the 21st century to describe human interactions across the cultural, social, economic, and political spectrum. Most think of it as a modern phenomenon brought about by the quantum advances in communication and transportation of recent times. The globalization of today is, however but one stage in a progression that had its origins in the neolithic more than 12,000 years ago, when humans first settled into communities supported by agriculture. With a settled lifestyle came the need to reach out to other communities to procure goods and raw materials not available locally. Tracing these developing exchange networks, understanding their organization, and their ultimate impact on the development of early states and economies of scale has long been integral to archaeological research.

Obsidian, natural volcanic glass, has been prized by peoples of the ancient Near East for making tools and objects art and personal adornment since before the beginnings of settled communities. Widely distributed , but in a relatively limited number of localities, each with a unique chemical signature, obsidian has proven to be an ideal material for studying early trade in the ancient Near East.

SCMRE's Nuclear Laboratory for Archaeological Research houses the most extensive data base of chemical analyses of geological sources of Near Eastern obsidian in the world. More than thirty five sources have been analyzed in the laboratory in conjunction with a series of targeted archaeological research projects involving multi- national collaboration. These projects, covering a broad time span from ca. 9500 to 2000 B.C., have each sought to examine a specific aspect of obsidian exchange within the context of the site/sites and time period studied. To date over 1100 artifacts have been analyzed with about 90% attributed to a specific geological obsidian source. The results of this obsidian characterization research have made substantial contributions to unraveling the complex interactions at play throughout the coarse of prehistory in the ancient Near East. This research, highlighted in selected projects shown on the map and time line, has illuminated the shifting nature of trade and cultural contact over a 7500 year period in the ancient Near East.

posted 05 March 2005 06:11 PM            

quote:

---

Desmond Clark
The Prehistory of Africa
New York, Praeger, 1970

"Who were the Late Stone Age people living in eastern Africa before the arrival of early iron Age Bantu-speaking peoples? Early claims by L.S.B. Leakey that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong. It has been demonstrated that the early eastern Africans of Late Stone Age times were Negroids who probably would have physically resembled peoples living in the southern Sudan at present."

---

...could this account for the fact that the mysterious caucasoid people, as advocated earlier here, haven't still been found per repetitive requests?

posted 05 March 2005 06:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
http://www.si.edu/scmre/learning/obsidian_trade.htm

The globalization of today is, however but one stage in a progression that had its origins in the neolithic more than 12,000 years ago...

---

Thought Posts:

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

"Whereas people generally obtained material from the nearby area, there is evidence of either exchange of exotic raw materials between groups or long-distance travel to obtain highly desirable raw materials such as obsidian. For example, at the Olduvai Gorge Naisiusi beds, eight Late Stone Age obsidian artifacts dating to about **17,000 years ago** were recovered. The obsidian has been traced by X-ray fluorescence analysis to an area around Lake Naivasha in Kenya about 250 kilometers away from Olduvai."

posted 05 March 2005 06:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

...could this account for the fact that the mysterious caucasoid people, as advocated earlier here, haven't still been found per repetitive requests?

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 05 March 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

I had a personal discussion with Dr. C Loring Brace once. He commented that if Osama Bin Laden is considered a “Caucasoid” then the term has no meaning. Likewise, I say if populations like Oromo, Beja, Borana, Ancient Egyptians, Afar etc are considered “Caucasian” the term has no merit.

posted 05 March 2005 06:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I had a personal discussion with Dr. C Loring Brace once. He commented that if Osama Bin Laden is considered a “Caucasoid” then the term has no meaning. Likewise, I say if populations like Oromo, Beja, Borana, Ancient Egyptians, Afar etc are considered “Caucasian” the term has no merit.

---

posted 05 March 2005 06:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Interesting words from a person who earlier used the much talked about clusters!

---

Thought Writes:

posted 05 March 2005 06:39 PM            

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

"The oldest-known microliths have been found in Africa. Such information has added significantly to the growing body of evidence documenting the early contributions of prehistoric peoples in Africa to the overall development of technology."

posted 05 March 2005 06:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

You know, sometimes I think scholars back themselves into corners and become to proud to adapt to new information.

---

posted 05 March 2005 06:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Interesting words from a person who earlier used the much talked about clusters!

---

When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place.
- Johoann W. von Goethe

posted 05 March 2005 07:13 PM            

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

posted 05 March 2005 07:16 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 Writes:

I don't have all of my Diop material on hand, but I believe that Diop noted sharp differences between the Northern Cradle and Southern Cradle cultures when it came to burial practices. Can anyone elaborate on Diop's position in this regard?

posted 05 March 2005 07:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I don't have all of my Diop material on hand, but I believe that Diop noted sharp differences between the Northern Cradle and Southern Cradle cultures when it came to burial practices. Can anyone elaborate on Diop's position in this regard?

---

Thought Posts:

Egypt In Africa
Edited By T. Celenko

Mother and Child Imagery in Egypt and Its Influence on Christianity

Frank Yurco

"Worship of Isis and Osiris as savior deities who provided resurrection and life after death grew in the Late Period (663 BC and later). FOREIGN cultures in contact with Egypt TOOK some notice of these beliefs, and Greeks and Jews who had settled in Egypt were noticeably ATTRACTED. Vibrant Egyptian belief in resurrection and afterlife through Isis and Osiris must have been appealing to these SETTLERS, whose ILL-DEFINED concepts of an afterlife were shadowy at best. The Greeks, especially adopted these Egyptian beliefs."

posted 05 March 2005 07:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:

Egypt In Africa
Edited By T. Celenko

Mother and Child Imagery in Egypt and Its Influence on Christianity

Frank Yurco

"Worship of Isis and Osiris as savior deities who provided resurrection and life after death grew in the Late Period (663 BC and later). FOREIGN cultures in contact with Egypt TOOK some notice of these beliefs, and Greeks and Jews who had settled in Egypt were noticeably ATTRACTED. Vibrant Egyptian belief in resurrection and afterlife through Isis and Osiris must have been appealing to these SETTLERS, whose ILL-DEFINED concepts of an afterlife were shadowy at best. The Greeks, especially adopted these Egyptian beliefs."

---

Thought Posts:

http://www.worcesterart.org/Antioch/coa.html

Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleukos, a general of Alexander the Great, Antioch was commonly held to be the finest metropolis in the Greek East.

Thought Posts:

ACTS 11:26

posted 05 March 2005 07:37 PM            

A friend of mine did a report on the beginnings of agriculture and her thesis was that women were the ones that invented the process. Her reason was simple-- In foraging societies, since traditionally women were the ones responsible for gathering plants, they were the ones that acquired intimate knowledge of the planting process. The similar argument is applied to men, in that since men were the hunters and responsible for gathering meat, they were the ones that domesticated animals. Since agriculture was the basis for complex societies, women can therefore be seen as the founders of civilization [at least that’s her contention ]. She further explained the social and especially religious implications of all this. Like, before agriculture women most likely had a status equal to that of men, perhaps slightly more privileged, but once agriculture was invented their status grew even more so. She uses evidence like the more complex burials and more elaborate funerary possessions of women and the prevalence of female figurines and statuettes that represent goddesses, most of which are found in Neolithic sites like Jericho in the Levant and Catal Huyuk in Anatolia.

posted 05 March 2005 07:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:

http://www.worcesterart.org/Antioch/coa.html

Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleukos, a general of Alexander the Great, Antioch was commonly held to be the finest metropolis in the Greek East.

Thought Posts:

ACTS 11:26

"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assmebled themselves with the Church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians FIRST in Antioch."

---

Thought Posts:

http://www.touregypt.net/godsofegypt/set.htm

Set

Other Names: Seth, Sutekh

Patron of: winds, storms, chaos, evil, darkness, strength, war, conflict, Upper Egypt.

Appearance: A man with the head of a jackal-like animal. In depictions of his battle with Horus he is often shown as a black pig or hippopotamus. Sometimes he is shown as a crocodile, perhaps a combination of him and the original god of evil, Apep. He is also shown as a man with red hair and eyes, or wearing a red mantle, the Egyptians believing that bright red was a color of evil.

Thought Writes:

I have always wondered if there was some connection between Set and the snake in the garden in Genesis which grew into the Great Dragon in Revelations?

posted 05 March 2005 07:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

I have always wondered if there was some connection between Set and the snake in the garden in Genesis which grew into the Great Dragon in Revelations?

---

From careful analysis, connections have been observed elsewhere in Genesis.

posted 05 March 2005 07:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Interesting stuff, Thought!

She uses evidence like the more complex burials and more elaborate funerary possessions of women and the prevalence of female figurines and statuettes that represent goddesses, most of which are found in Neolithic sites like Jericho in the Levant and Catal Huyuk in Anatolia.

So what are your assessments about all this?

---

Thought Writes:

posted 05 March 2005 08:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Interesting stuff, Thought!

She uses evidence like the more complex burials and more elaborate funerary possessions of women and the prevalence of female figurines and statuettes that represent goddesses, most of which are found in Neolithic sites like Jericho in the Levant and Catal Huyuk in Anatolia.

So what are your assessments about all this?

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Again, I do not have my Diop material in front of me, but I believe he addressed this in his Two Cradle theory as well. African and African derived cultures (Catal Huyuk and Jericho) were originally matriarchal. Later, they were overrun by Northern Cradle patriarchal cultures. It is of interest that genetic analysis indicates greater effective population size of African women to African men in the anthropological record.

---

Yes generally

posted 05 March 2005 08:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
From careful analysis, connections have been observed elsewhere in Genesis.

---

Thought Writes:

Of course through cultural diffusion original meanings are often obscured. Set may have represented the principle of opposition instead of evil as portrayed in the Western archetype of Satan . The principle of opposition would be a necessary phase of the cyclical waxing and waning of life or the animated realm. Good and evil represent a more linear construct modeled on fear. In turn, Freud’s insight from A PHYLOGENETIC FANTASY may add clarity in that regard.

posted 05 March 2005 08:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

Can you please specify what you are referring to as "Northern Cradles"?

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 05 March 2005).]

---

Thought Posts:

http://www.jalumi.com/class/csu/Two_Cradle_Theory.htm

DIOP'S TWO CRADLE THEORY
FROM "THE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF CIVILIZATION" AND "CULTURAL UNITY"
CHARACTERISTIS OF THE TWO CRADLES
(Determined by Environment after a separation during the Ice Age.)
Southern Cradle-Egyptian Model

1. Abundance of vital resources.
2. Sedentary-agricultural.
3. Gentle, idealistic, peaceful nature with a spirit of justice.
4. Matriarchal family.
5. Emancipation of women in domestic life.
6. Territorial state.
7. Xenophilia.
8. Cosmopolitanism.
9. Social collectivism.
10. Material solidarity of right for individual which makes moral
or material misery unknown.
11. Idea of peace, justice, goodness and optimism.
12. Literature emphasizes novel tales, fables and comedy.

Northern Cradle-Greek Model
1. Bareness of resources.
2. Nomadic-hunting (piracy)
3. Ferocious, warlike nature with spirit of survival.
4. Patriarchal family.
5. Debasement / enslavement of women.
6. City state (fort)
7. Xenophobia.
8. Parochialism.
9. Individualism.
10. Moral solitude.
11. Disgust for existence, pessimism.
12. Literature favors tragedy.

http://www.lulu.com/content/69019

Cheikh Anta Diop's "Two Cradle Theory"

Description:
Cheikh Anta Diop, the world famous Black African scientist, researcher and historian originally published his "Two Cradle Theory" in French. Third World Press of Chicago published the English translation of this great work in 1974. Over the years Dr. Diop's highly regarded writings have garnered praise from a wide range of scholars and researchers. By comparing the social customs, family structure and moral worldview of the Northern (European)and Southern (African) Cradles of civilization using scientific methodology Cheikh Anta Diop's work clearly demonstrates the profound impact of environment on human behavior and the early development of culture.

posted 05 March 2005 08:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
From careful analysis, connections have been observed elsewhere in Genesis.

---

quote:

---

Wally wrote: This entire chapter (which often exhibits Budge's European chauvinism) also includes in depth analysis of several African religions from east, west, and central Africa. It also details the importance of the factor of Evil in African political thought, wherein the Devil is as powerful as God, and gives insight on the significance of the god Set.

---

posted 05 March 2005 08:17 PM            

quote:

---

Again, I do not have my Diop material in front of me, but I believe he addressed this in his Two Cradle theory as well.

---

Yes, I believe Diop was one of the first scholars to point this out despite his Afrocentric ties. Because he was Afrocentric it was easy for other scholars to dismiss him. I wonder how many other scholars have proposed this. I would assume such an idea would be kind or radical at the time considering that scholarship back then, especially that of history was male dominated.

posted 05 March 2005 08:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Yes, I believe Diop was one of the first scholars to point this out despite his Afrocentric ties. Because he was Afrocentric it was easy for other scholars to dismiss him. I wonder how many other scholars have proposed this. I would assume such an idea would be kind or radical at the time considering that scholarship back then, especially that of history was male dominated.

You should be careful to associate matriarchy with Africa. Much evidence leads many scholars to suggest that all, if not most cultures back then were matriarchal or matric(female centered or privleged). There is one thing about Diop's theory I disagree with, which is he associates matriarchy with agriculture and patriarchy with pastoralism. There are pastoral peoples in Africa where women still retain high status like the Fulani and Wodaabi peoples of the Sahel and the even the Tuareg of the Sahara. Even in Asia, Tibetan nomads like the Khampa and Gwarung hold women in high status.

---

Djehuti, Diop never proclaimed to be an "Afrocentrist". If he did, I would like to know where? He was a scientist, historian and an activist; that much I know.

posted 05 March 2005 08:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Djehuti, Diop never proclaimed to be an "Afrocentrist". If he did, I would like to know where? He was a scientist, historian and an activist; that much I know.

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 05 March 2005).]

---

I never said Diop proclaimed to be anything!.. And yes I know the guy was a brilliant scientist, historian and activist. I've read a few of his books including Origins of African Civilization, Civilization or Barbarism, and Precolonial Black Africa. The point is not how he considers himself as but more importantly how others do, and that even though I agree with much of what he says pertaining to Africa, there are various other things I disagree with. One thing which I had just pointed out concering patriarchy with pastoral nomadism.

posted 05 March 2005 08:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I never said Diop proclaimed to be anything!.. And yes I know the guy was a brilliant scientist, historian and activist. I've read a few of his books including Origins of African Civilization, Civilization or Barbarism, and Precolonial Black Africa. The point is not how he considers himself as but more importantly how others do, and that even though I agree with much of what he says pertaining to Africa, there are various other things I disagree with. One thing which I had just pointed out concering patriarchy with pastoral nomadism.

---

posted 05 March 2005 08:57 PM            

What do you guys think of the widespread religous beliefs and rituals of the sacrificial agricultural man?! If you know what I'm speaking of then you know This is very significant to ancient Egyptian religion as well as perhaps the Judeo-Christian Bible!!

posted 05 March 2005 09:03 PM            

{Yes, I believe Diop was one of the first scholars to point this out despite his Afrocentric ties. Because he was Afrocentric it was easy for other scholars to dismiss him.}

Thought Writes:

How do you define someone as "Afrocentric"?

{You should be careful to associate matriarchy with Africa. Much evidence leads many scholars to suggest that all, if not most cultures back then were matriarchal or matric(female centered or privleged).}

Thought Writes:

The implication being that human culture is rooted in matriarchies as human culture is rooted in Africa. Patriarchy may be rooted in Europe. Of course there are aberrations to every rule.

{There is one thing about Diop's theory I disagree with, which is he associates matriarchy with agriculture and patriarchy with pastoralism. There are pastoral peoples in Africa where women still retain high status like the Fulani and Wodaabi peoples of the Sahel and the even the Tuareg of the Sahara. Even in Asia, Tibetan nomads like the Khampa and Gwarung hold women in high status.}

Thought Writes:

posted 05 March 2005 09:23 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes: How do you define someone as "Afrocentric"?

---

I define an Afrocentric as anyone who just happens to be really into African culture and history and not necessarily a cultural chauvinist as some on this forum are inclined to believe.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

The implication being that human culture is rooted in matriarchies as human culture is rooted in Africa. Patriarchy may be rooted in Europe. Of course there are aberrations to every rule.

I always thought the association was between the matriarchy and the Southern Cradle in general?

---

You are probably right that matriarchy maybe as old as mankind and its beginnings in Africa, but it must be clear that matriarchy was widespread back then with various "cradles" not just in Africa. Evidence shows matriarchy being present in the Near-East; Paleo-Europe(Europe before Indo-European migrations); South Asia(Indian Sub-continent); mainland and insular Southeast Asia; East Asia, including China, Korea, and Japan; Siberia; the Americas; and across the Pacific from Indonesia to Polynesia.

posted 05 March 2005 09:57 PM            

quote:

---

Yes, I believe Diop was one of the first scholars to point this out despite his Afrocentric ties. Because he was Afrocentric it was easy for other scholars to dismiss him.

---

When asked to define his reference to the term, he wrote:

quote:

---

I define an Afrocentric as anyone who just happens to be really into African culture and history and not necessarily a cultural chauvinist as some on this forum are inclined to believe

---

posted 06 March 2005 07:29 AM            

This is clearly seen both with nomadic bedouin Arabs and also amongst nomadic Selijuk Turks. The conflict between the fellah and Arabs in Middle Age Egyptian society seems to demonstrate this as well.

I have problems with associating strictly matriarchical societies with just African people. Many socieities within Africa are both matriarchical and patriarchical. Some are matrilineal and some are patrilineal. Either forms of kinship can be found on the African continent.

posted 06 March 2005 09:23 AM            

The thing is...the Sahara, which is in the south is more of a "Northern cradle" environment, ie - extremely harsh.

posted 06 March 2005 10:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Yes, but the Sahara was not always a desert. At one time during the Neolithic the Sahara was once more lush than in the modern era. The sahara did not begin to dry up completely untill about 4,000 years ago.

---

posted 06 March 2005 11:29 AM            

Another primary example is the Inuit of the north pole. You would expect that many are hostile but infact they are very gentle people. This seems to put a contridiction on the whole northern/southern cradle theory.

posted 06 March 2005 11:30 AM            

quote:

---

Djehuti, what is your opinion on the thesis that nomadic pastoralists are violent compared to agriculturalist being less violent? Do you agree with this notion? The Arab historian Ibn Khaldun pointed out that nomadic pastorial socieities tended to dominate more advanced agritcultural socieities.
This is clearly seen both with nomadic bedouin Arabs and also amongst nomadic Selijuk Turks. The conflict between the fellah and Arabs in Middle Age Egyptian society seems to demonstrate this as well.

---

Ausar, this is indeed very true!! In fact this conflict between sedentary agriculturalists and nomadic pastoralists occur all througout history! Between the Egyptians and Medjay of the Eastern Desert and the Tjemehu of the Western desert(note that there was even more animosity towards Asiatics); between the settled Mesopotamians and the various nomadic tribes that surrounded them like the Semites; the Indus people and the Aryan speakers; the Chinese and their Altaic barbarian enemies to the north like the Turks, Mongols, and Manchu-Tungus. This is definitely the pattern. From what I've gathered, pastoral societies do seem to exhibit more violence. For examples, did you know that back then, an Afar man used to present the testicles of his enemy to his bride-to-be, and other nomads in the Horn had similar practices?! Indo-European nomads were known for their gruesome sacrifices and human trophies. Nomads of Pakistan and Afghanistan would dismember their foes, and Altaic peoples like the Mongols would drink the blood of their enemies in certain rituals. As far as these nomads conquering the agriculturalist states, this seems to have been the case time and again. The one advantage Agriculturalists had was more advanced technology but the nomads usually had better battle techniques.

quote:

---

I have problems with associating strictly matriarchal societies with just African people. Many societies within Africa are both matriarchal and patriarchal. Some are matrilineal and some are patrilineal. Either forms of kinship can be found on the African continent.

---

As I have stated before matriarchy was widespread in societies throughout the world and should not be confined just to Africa! Also, patrilineage should not be confused with patriarchy. In my research those cultures in Africa that are patrilinear are usually patric(male privileged or centered) but not male dominant since the women of those societies still have more rights and privileges than in true patriarchal ones. Also, the only true patriarchal societies in Africa that I know of are those that have been affected by foreign influence like Arab-Islamic or European-Christian.

posted 06 March 2005 11:36 AM            

quote:

---

Another primary example is the Inuit of the north pole. You would expect that many are hostile but infact they are very gentle people. This seems to put a contridiction on the whole northern/southern cradle theory.

---

posted 06 March 2005 12:19 PM            

quote:

---

Between the Egyptians and Medjay of the Eastern Desert and the Tjemehu of the Western desert(note that there was even more animosity towards Asiatics)

---

However, the Egyptians did have pastorial communities within already agritcultural ones. Usually, cattle was grazed around the Delta and in parts where pasture was more abundant.

If you would like more details about agritcultural communities throughout the ages then see Alan_K._Bowman's book Agritculture in Egypt:From Pharaonic to Modern Times.

In the same sense sometimes Egyptians were more prone to violence than their pastorial Asiatic or southerners. See Senworset's attitude toward Asiatics and southeners.[ref. Ian Shaw's Oxford History of Ancient Egypt]

quote:

---

From what I've gathered pastoral societies do seem to use more violence. For examples, did you know that back then, an Afar man used to present the testicles of his enemy to his bride-to-be, and other nomads in the Horn had similar practices?

---

I have heard of pratices of the Afar nomads. I believe the Somali have both a agritcultural and pastorial economies. Have similar pratices been found amongst the Massai.

You know that the C-group Nubians and Kerma Nubians were both pastorial/sedentary farmers,and had mixed agritcultural economies.

quote:

---

Also, the only true patriarchal societies in Africa that I know of are those that have been affected by foreign influence like Arab-Islamic or European-Christian.

---

One exception would he the Atlas Mountain Imazigh,Sahelian Tuaregs,and other various sahelian people. The Mzab of southern Algeria seem to be the only Imazigh that have embraced the patriarchical pratices of Arab-Islamic in northern Africa.

The modern rural Upper Egyptians unfortunately are very influced by Arabic treatment of women. However, it seems quite odd that in early Christian communities in Southern Egypt like Djeme we find women were in equal standings with males. You even had female clergy.

[reference Women of Jeme : Lives in a Coptic Town in Late Antique Egypt (New Texts from Ancient Cultures)
by Terry Wilfong]

posted 06 March 2005 03:24 PM            

The main point I want to make is that matriarchy in general was wide spread throughout the world once and that not all pastoral societies are patriarchal. I guess one could say similar with agircultural societies being matriarchal, since Chinese society is agricultural but also patriarchal. Although there is plenty of evidence that suggests it was once matriarchal in Neolithic times, so one would assume that their society was eventually usurped by patriarchal people much the same way early Pre-Hellenic society was.

By the way, as I asked a while back, What do think of the widespread religous belief of the sacrificial agricultural male? If you know what I mean then you would know why this belief was very significan to Egyptian religion as well as the Judeo-Christian Bible!!

posted 06 March 2005 03:52 PM            

quote:

---

By the way, as I asked a while back, What do think of the widespread religous belief of the sacrificial agricultural male? If you know what I mean then you would know why this belief was very significan to Egyptian religion as well as the Judeo-Christian Bible!!

---

posted 06 March 2005 04:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Could you give more details about this belief?

---

My friend who did her report on women inventing agriculture, explained something very interesting as to what happened when men took over agricultural practices. It's simply because agriculture and dealings with plants was traditionally the woman's role and the land or earth itself was associated with the females that there was probably a taboo against males performing this task. If a man were to break this taboo he had to pay the price with blood, either that of an animal or himself!! There seems to be a startling world-wide belief in this and this belief can be explicitly seen in many myths. Renowned mythologist Joseph Campbell, points this out.

Every myth dealing with a man or even male deity whose role is agricultural involves blood and death! For example, the Algoquin Native Americans tell of the man that first farmed corn, where he tells a woman to slay him and bury his head, and where his head is buried corn grows. Polynesians have a strikingly similar myth involving coconuts. The Chinese also have a myth where a man wants to know the art of farming so he must sacrifice his love ones to the earth goddess. In the Near-East the fertility god of the Earth Adon is slain so that the crops may be renewed. It's similar with the god Baal who is dismembered and has to be retrieved by his sister Anat. Of course in Egypt there is User/Ausar(Osiris) who is dismembered by his brother Set but is revived by his sister-wife Aset.

All of these myths have the same things in common: they involve males who are agricultural and they involve females who are either the ones that slay them or they are the ones that save them. The underlying theme is that females have the orignal power of vegetative or agricultural fertility which is simply giving life, but for a male to have these powers he must compensate with the taking of life either his own or another living thing. Once a life is taken, he will regenerate the land and crops. If it was his own life, he could have the chance to be ressurected but with only the power of the female or goddess.

What do you think of this concept, and do you really think that this was the underlying theme of the death of Osiris story, other than the conflict with Set??