Nameless African aficionados probably will be even more interested in the following item related to the early Holocene environment of Egypt, especially since the issue of the African Archaeological Review in which it appears online at:
http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0263-0338/currentis complementary, containing free downloadable pdfs, including this article. Aren't we all curious about the origins of pre-dynastic Egypt?
African Archaeological Review
20 (4): 175-202, December 2003
Copyright © 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation
All rights reserved
Cultural Origins of the Egyptian Neolithic and Predynastic: An Evaluation of the Evidence from the Dakhleh Oasis (South Central Egypt)
Ashten R. Warfe
Centre for Archaeology, School of Historical Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;
ashten.warfe@arts.monash.edu.au Abstract
The debate surrounding the origins of the Egyptian Neolithic and Predynastic has, over the past few decades, come to rest on the neighboring Saharan region as the most likely source of influence. Although there is some evidence for the appearance of domesticates in the Western Desert before food-producing communities emerged in Upper and Lower Egypt, there is a strong case for the introduction of Saharan artifacts and technologies to the Nile Valley communities. This paper examines this argument in relation to the Western Desert region of the Dakhleh Oasis (South Central Egypt). The intent of the paper is to recognize the role Dakhleh played in the cultural development of the Egyptian Neolithic and Predynastic and whether this can clearly be seen through artifact parallels.
Les parties débattant des origines de l'Egypte néolithique et pré-dynastique ont fini, au cours des dernières décennies, par conclure que la région voisine du Sahara était leur source d'influence la plus vraisemblable. Bien que certaines preuves existent de l'apparition de plantes et d'animaux domestiques dans le Désert occidental avant l'émergence de communautés produisant des aliments en Basse et Haute Egypte, de solides arguments émergent en faveur de l'introduction d'objets fabriqués et de technologies dans les communautés de la Vallée du Nil. L'exposé en question examine cet argument par rapport à la région du Désert occidental de l'Oasis de Dakhla (centre-sud de l'Egypte). Le but de cet exposé est de reconnaître le rôle de Dakhla dans le développement culturel de l'Egypte néolithique et pré-dynastique et de déterminer si oui ou non celui-ci peut clairement être identifié, de façon parallèle, au travers d'objets fabriqués.
Keywords
Egypt, Western Desert, Dakhleh Oasis, mid-Holocene, Nile Valley, Neolithic
Article ID: 475963
Enjoy,
Dar
I have posted my comments on the Paleoanthro yahoogroups list as well. I am cross-posting it here in case anyone is interested in reading:
------------------------------------
Dar, remember you bringing Kathleen Nicoll's 2004 Quaternary Science Reviews article (Recent environmental change and prehistoric human activity in Egypt and Northern Sudan) to my attention ? Thanks again for that; it will prove to be of assistance in developing aspects of my dissertation. I am presently reading it and have noticed an error on page 563. The last sentence before section 3 reads, "There are few [radiocarbon] dates after 5000 BP, and no dates after 4000 BP, reflecting a trend of regional desertification." She is wrong. There are post-4000 BP dates from the C-Group occupation at Nabta Playa in the Western Desert which is reported in table 3.1 of Wendorf et al. (2001) "Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara", the site publication report of NP which is cited in her references too.
Subsequent to me writing the above last night, I finished reading the article today. The article is mixed. It raises interesting points, opens new research paths to follow, strays perhaps a little too much into environmental determinsim for my liking and displays a horrific amount of unnecessary errors when discussing the Western Desert site of Nabta Playa.
The two sites I know best that she discusses is NP and Dakhleh Oasis (there are two spelling errors of the name in her references). She summarises the data and dates accurately from DO.
Apart from the C-Group error mentioned above, she uses Wednorf & Schild (1980), Gauthier (1980) and Close (1984) when discussing the occupational layers, playa formations and aridity/humid periods for Nabta Playa. Yet elsewhere she cites the latest, and complete, site report which is Wendorf et al (2001) so she is aware of this publication. Now the problem is quite simple: excavations were carried out at Nabta Playa in the early 1990s which resulted in the sedimentary and occupational phases and dates being re-evaluated, and indeed altered. This results in the information given on page 567 bearing scant relation to the current framework proposed by the excavators for the site.
Further on page 567, Nicoll claims that sheep, goat and perhaps dog have been found in Early Neolithic layers at NP. Her claim for the sheep includes both Barbary and domesticated sheep. She cites Gautier (2001) as the source for this information. There is just one problem: Gautier, in the cited report, says (a) there were low numbers of Barbary sheep bones from the Early Neolithic (fine, Nicoll got that right), (b) the first domesticated ovicaprids (domesticated sheep and goats) are from the Middle Neolithic, and (c) the dogs are from the Middle Neolithic onwards too.
Yet another thing she got wrong was her stating that there are "stone houses arranged in rows" in the Early Neolithic El Nabta sequence. If she had paid closer attention to another one of her referenced citations elsewhere (Wendorf & Schild 1998), she would have seen that the excavators no longer think that to be the most plausible explanation.
There are other flaws in the article too, also relating to NP. One of the other flaws is in Figure 3 where she places "first villages & ceremonial centers, apogee of sedentism" under the Middle Neolithic. Actually Wendorf & Schild place that in the Early Neolithic El Nabta phase - and Nicoll gives no explanation for moving it. Furthermore, her "caprovids introduced from SW Asia" should be under the Middle Neolithic and not straddling the boundary between Early-Middle right next to El Jerar (which is a contemporary phase with El Nabta, despite the same Figure making it look as if it is later in time).
Otherwise, the article is thought-provoking and has provided me with additional references to pursue for research for my dissertation. It must, however, be read with critical care.
If anyone wishes to read this article, let me know.
