Cattle possibly domesticated in Sudan?

[tariq moses]

Cow about that! New research overturns traditional thoughts about domesticated cattle

Scientists have found that humans domesticated cattle around 10,000 years ago in the Central Nile region in today's Sudan.

scienceinpoland.pl

Scientists have found that humans domesticated cattle around 10,000 years ago in the Central Nile region in today's Sudan.

The preliminary conclusions from researchers at the Polish Academy of Sciences who recently returned from excavations, overturns traditional thoughts that domesticated cattle came to East Africa from the lands of Turkey and Iraq.....


At one of the sites from the beginning of the Holocene Age (approx. 10,000 years ago), the researchers discovered the remains of domesticated cattle with 'aurochs-like' features. They were among the bones of other, strictly wild species of animals inhabiting the savannah.

The researchers are waiting for precise sample dating results, which will confirm their age and allow to talk about the local domestication.

Osypiński said: “That group of people already knew ceramic vessels, used quern-stones to grind cereal grains (wild varieties of millet), so they can be called early-Neolithic communities. They still hunted wild savannah animals, with one only exception - cattle at an early stage of domestication.”

 

[The alchemist]

We knew Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers in Nabta Playa—Bir Kiseiba had considerable amount of population of wild aurochs. We knew they had cattle cult, ritualistic funerary practices where the animal was very much one central piece. I think, if not domestication, they for sure did some handling of the animal way before the domestication of the cattle altogether anywhere. I think the linguistics, from the early layers of Nilo-Saharan, point to cattle as, not domesticated for farming purposes but for meat of primary disposition.

The cattle can very much have been domesticated by people of the Sudanic belt, goats and sheep were introduced by Afro-Asiatic speakers, donkeys, the first beast of burden, were domesticated by Cushities. The linguistic origin for cattle was indeed very original to Nilo-Saharan and not borrowings, unlike other domesticated animals that got diffused later.

You know what, in the early days, the Sudanic Civilization had stronger influence on Egypt than vice versa. Egypt lie to the periphery of a greater cultural sphere of interaction that went to the middle Nile. More influence came from this Sudanic civilization than the other way around. More loanwords for agricultural aspects, like edible gourds and watermelon (domesticated and native to Sudan), wooden trough, kind of beer, kind of cattle pen, other evidence from material culture, often in conjunction of botanical evidence, thornbush byre, a characteristic of the Sudanese Neolithic agricultural feature that spread to Egypt.

Another noteworthy technological development was the invention of cotton weaving in the sixth millennium B.C.E. That conclusion was reached through two lines of evidence, botanical and archeological. Cotton is a native wild plant of the Sudan belt, and was undoubtedly domesticated in the eastern part of Sudan, as botanical studies have shown. From the complimentary archeological position, discovering spindlewhorls, not only indirectly indicates early domestication of the plant, but further tells us that the cotton fibers were spun into threads. So far known, the earliest of these tools have been discovered, belonging to the Khartoum Neolithic site, dated to the sixth millennium B.C.E. Another from the fourth millennium B.C.E in a farming village called the Shaheinab. The archeologist who work in those places wrote two thick books sixty years ago, but did not know what those findings were so it was left unrecognized for a long time. Egypt, in contrast, did not get this technology, from what I believe, a diffusion, until much later. So skipped Egypt and went to the middle-east and into Indus Valley.

One crucial aspect of the origins of a unique sense of sacral kingship got spread as a package from Sudan. These kings used to bury their servants with them, for them to join in the afterlife, what was thought as a replicate of this one. Does this sound familiar? This was a tradition along a four thousand miles stretch, all the way from Ghana to the eastern Sahel, and started from the Eastern Sudan area before this practice was put in place in Egypt. That amount of land had less kingship tradition diversity than, the more cultural interactive near east that had much more differentiation from place to place. This unique tradition, was in fact, a deep culture that was not spread by everyday intersocial contact, but was a form of bedrock of a peoples social and ethnic self-identification.

These Sudanic peoples believed in a more "monotheistic" divine that contrasted the Egyptians (and unlike Egyptians, the Sudanic kings/chieftains did not consider themselves divine), but the latter peoples grafted this sacral aspect to kingship into their polytheistic religious environment. Egypt at the early and pre-days, was basically sourcing their culture from Upper Egypt, contemporaneously, considered a very north periphery of a wide Sudanic Civilization, so even if Egypt was not part of the integral Sudanic Civilization, there was cross-cultural influence that nested itself deep into Egyptian culture before uniting Upper and Lower and then kickstarting the dynastic periods. Before this happened, the biggest kingdom was Ta-Seti, a kingdom that ruled Upper Egypt from the 34th millennium B.C.E to the 32-millennium B.CE, but Upper Egypt defeated them completely because they had a larger population, better land for cultivation, etc., and subsequently merged Upper and Lower Egypt into one.

 

[tariq moses]

Its worth noting that an ancient Egyptians word pertaining to cattle shows Nilo-Saharan influence.

"From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr). can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar". Egyptian pg3, "bowl", (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era". - Christopher Ehret, Egypt in Africa

Ancient Egyptians practised cattle horn deformation, a practise still carried out by South Sudanese people

"There were various ways of modification, but it was essentially similar to the process in ancient Egypt. The Dinka and Nuer tribes (Figure 16a), typically modified one horn forward and downward, while the other was left to grow normally backward and upward or both horns equally modified, reversing the normal. Such bulls were called “front horns bulls” both horns growing upwards and towards inside (Chaix 2006, pp. 50- 51; figs. 1 & 3; Chaix 1996, pp. 95-97 (Figure 16b)."

In addition to these Sudanese tribes, some other tribes in Cameroon adopt the same tradition modifying the two horns downward and hanging on the cheek of the animal (Kyselý 2010, p. 1242) (Plate 7). In Modern Ethiopia however, they modified their animal’s horns to grow together upwards and inside by fracturing the base of the horn-sheath with a stone weight, Afterwards, the forehead of the animal was cut and stick inserted in to maintain the tension on the rope attached to the horn (Chaix, Dubosson, Honegger 2012, pp. 202‑204) (Plate 8a & 8b & Figure 16c)."

This practise is attested in ancient Nubia too.

The human remains at Nabta Playa were said to be Sub-Saharan with some North African affinities(later Neolithic populations in the same region are also Sub-Saharan with some North African affinities, see Gebel Ramleh). Its very possible cattle was domesticated in Sudan by a mostly SSA people with some MENA ancestry speaking Nilo-Saharan.


Heres a list of cattle remains in Africa if anyones interested.
site Long. lat. Date (bp)
Adrar Bous 20.36 9.02 7180
Arlit 18.73 7.72 5970
Bir Kiseiba 22.68 29.92 10100
Boû Khzâmâ 16.75 -7.25 4000
Chami A2 20.12 -15.97 4000
Chin-Tafidet 17.45 6.27 3650
Dakhleh Oasis 25.49 28.98 7800
Dhar Tichitt 18.50 -9.50 4260
El Nofalab 15.86 32.54 6080
El Zakiab 15.75 32.56 6130
El-Kadada 18.15 33.95 5500
Enneri Bardagué 22.50 16.50 8260
Esh Shaheinab 15.83 32.50 5300
Fayum A sites 29.54 31.01 7350
Gajiganna A, B 12.27 -13.20 3350
Gilf el Kebir 23.44 25.84 7810
Gobero 16.88 9.12 5900
Grotte-
Capeletti 35.44 6.27 7400
Haua Fteah 32.89 22.05 6700
Ifri n’ Etsedda 35.08 2.47 7100
Kadero 15.77 32.65 6410
Karkarichinkat 16.86 0.20 4400
Kharga/E-76-7,
E-76-8 25.48 30.63 8730
Khashm el Girba 14.99 35.95 5700
Khatt Lemaiteg 19.20 -14.75 3500
Kintampo R6 8.02 -1.75 3220
Kobadi 15.35 -5.48 3500
Kolima Sud 15.37 -5.33 3270
Lake Turkana 3.5 36.4 4500
Laqiya 20.05 28.03 3770
Mahgar
Dendera 2 25.88 32.36 6275
Meneit 25.10 3.83 5400
Merimde-
Beni-Salama 30.30 30.84 6750
Nabta Playa 22.53 30.70 7940
Ntereso 9.17 -1.22 3190
Red Sea Hills,
Sodemein Cave 26.24 33.97 7050
Shaqadud 16.23 33.34 8300
Tamaya Mellet 18.16 5.42 6300
Tessalit 20.25 0.20 4600
Ti-n-Hanakaten 23.86 10.37 7220
Ti-n-Torha 25.63 10.83 8250
Uan Muhuggiag 24.90 10.37 7000
Um Direiwa 15.50 32.92 6850
Wadi Howar 17.23 25.65 5100
Windé Koroji 15.13 -2.93 4150

 

[tariq moses]

@The alchemist lol you beat me to it, I 1000% agree with pretty much everything you posted.

 

[Nilotic]

Nilo-Saharans

 

[Idilinaa]

It is not surprising seeing how deeply rooted cattle is in the culture and traditions in the region: Which features many cattle burials and whole cemeteries dedicated to them

Bucrania from the Eastern Cemetery at Kerma (Sudan) and the practice of cattle horn deformation

A Nubian culture that emerged in the early third millennium, the Kingdom of Kerma has retained in a rather lively fashion certain traditions of the pastoral societies that preceded it, notably the tight relationship between man and cattle.

Evidence is plentiful and shows that cattle not only played an economic role, but also served a social function. Cattle have been depicted as small gurines discovered in the ancient city of Kerma (Ferrero 1984) or painted on murals decorating
one of the large funerary chapels of the Eastern Cemetery (Bonnet 2000). More spectacular, however, is their use in funerary rituals, where thousands of bucrania were placed in front of burials. During all phases of the Kerma culture, domestic animals have played an essential role in the economy (Chaix, Grant, 1992).


This study goes into the implications and important role Cattle pastorialism had in Ancient African cultures and societies. Especially in Sahara and Eastern Africa
Inside the “African Cattle Complex”: Animal Burials in the Holocene Central Sahara

Cattle pastoralism is an important trait of African cultures. Ethnographic studies describe the central role played by domestic cattle within many societies, highlighting its social and ideological value well beyond its mere function as ‘walking larder’. Historical depth of this African legacy has been repeatedly assessed in an archaeological perspective, mostly emphasizing a continental vision. Nevertheless, in-depth site-specific studies, with a few exceptions, are lacking. Despite the long tradition of a multi-disciplinary approach to the analysis of pastoral systems in Africa, rarely do early and middle Holocene archaeological contexts feature in the same area the combination of settlement, ceremonial and rock art features so as to be multi-dimensionally explored: the Messak plateau in the Libyan central Sahara represents an outstanding exception. Known for its rich Pleistocene occupation and abundant Holocene rock art, the region, through our research, has also shown to preserve the material evidence of a complex ritual dated to the Middle Pastoral (6080–5120 BP or 5200–3800 BC). This was centred on the frequent deposition in stone monuments of disarticulated animal remains, mostly cattle. Animal burials are known also from other African contexts, but regional extent of the phenomenon, state of preservation of monuments, and associated rock art make the Messak case unique. GIS analysis, excavation data, radiocarbon dating, zooarchaeological and isotopic (Sr, C, O) analyses of animal remains, and botanical information are used to explore this highly formalized ritual and the lifeways of a pastoral community in the Holocene Sahara


Notwithstanding ecological barriers and diseases such as trypanosomes [8], cattle pastoralism spread all over the continent, becoming a momentous segment of African economy and society. Even today, relations between herders and their animals, especially in Eastern Africa, are particularly strong and well beyond the mere use of cattle as ‘walking larder’ [9]. Travellers, explorers and ethnographers of the 19th and early 20th century gave vivid narratives about the crucial importance of cows and bulls: Herskovits [10] coined the concept of “African Cattle Complex”, underlining the role of these animals within many African populations.

 

[Cognitive]

May I ask what exactly happened in Jebel Sahaba?
Was it a skirmish of peoples from the same ancestral stock, or was it something else?
There has to be a reason early lower Nubians (C-Group, A-Group…etc) suddenly differ a lot from the Mesolithic population.

Did the robust people from Mesolithic got driven out by highly-MENA people, or did they just left for the south and continued their (?)nomadic lifestyle?

I suppose A and C group would have higher Nilotic ancestry compared to their peers in Upper Egypt (Naqada, Nekhen, Abydos…etc), so could this be partially attributed to their “opportunistic” lifestyles? Meaning they would have more contacts with Porto-Nilotic peoples.

 

[tariq moses]

There has to be a reason early lower Nubians (C-Group, A-Group…etc) suddenly differ a lot from the Mesolithic population.

Mesolithic Nubians such as Jebel Sahaba are extremely SSA in their morphology and don't cluster with Lower Nubians, but Lower Nubians do cluster with another Mesolithic Nubian remain: Al Khiday

These people are more closely related to the ancestors of Lower Nubians and Egyptians.

 

[Cognitive]

@tariq moses Yes, I have seen you mentioning this. I remember the theory is something about the southward expansion of these people (who were HGs and not farmers, right?) being a result of African Humid Period.
Coupled with this, could the Al-Khiday people be partially ancestral to say…late Natufians? Natufians were modeled as 50% unknown Dzudzuana and 50% “basal Eurasian”.
So coupled with this, would it be logical to say AKH-like people somehow pushed out the JSA-like proto-Nilotic peoples? Or perhaps the latter just left for southern lands as they were mostly pastoralists?

 

[tariq moses]

@tariq moses Yes, I have seen you mentioning this. I remember the theory is something about the southward expansion of these people (who were HGs and not farmers, right?) being a result of African Humid Period.

I don't think it was due to the Humid period, there was a wet spell in Sudan at that time, the later Al khiday population burned the pre-mesolithic al khiday sites and had a different culture so you can tell they pre-mesolithic al khiday people were only there for a short amount of time, they were originally from Egypt imo.

Coupled with this, could the Al-Khiday people be partially ancestral to say…late Natufians? Natufians were modeled as 50% unknown Dzudzuana and 50% “basal Eurasian”.

Yes I think Al Khiday like people which is largely Indigenous Egyptian HG were partially ancestral to Natufians and are the main or maybe sole source of their Basal Eurasian and SSA. I think Egyptian HGs they spread Basal Eurasian and SSA all over Paleolithic and Mesolithic Eurasia.

So coupled with this, would it be logical to say AKH-like people somehow pushed out the JSA-like proto-Nilotic peoples?

Hmm I don't think so, AKH-like people admixed with JSA-like people to form Cushitic ancestry, so I don't think they were simply pushed out Nilotes may have had a presence all over Sudan, the ones in the North probably mixed with AKH types to produce Cushitic, even then, AKH could easily have JSA/Nilotic like ancestry given how closely it clusters with Lower Nubians...

 

[Cognitive]

I don't think it was due to the Humid period, there was a wet spell in Sudan at that time, the later Al khiday population burned the pre-mesolithic al khiday sites and had a different culture so you can tell they pre-mesolithic al khiday people were only there for a short amount of time, they were originally from Egypt imo.

So these AKH people (the ones who stayed in Egypt and didn’t venture into Sudan, at least) would be somehow seen as a remnant or split branch of the original OOA population?

Yes I think Al Khiday like people which is largely Indigenous Egyptian HG were partially ancestral to Natufians and are the main or maybe sole source of their Basal Eurasian and SSA. I think Egyptian HGs they spread Basal Eurasian and SSA all over Paleolithic and Mesolithic Eurasia.

Regarding that “SSA” we mention, is it ANA or proto Nilotic? IIRC Natufians do not carry proto Nilotic.

Hmm I don't think so, AKH-like people admixed with JSA-like people to form Cushitic ancestry, so I don't think they were simply pushed out Nilotes may have had a presence all over Sudan, the ones in the North probably mixed with AKH types to produce Cushitic, even then, AKH could easily have JSA/Nilotic like ancestry given how closely it clusters with Lower Nubians...

, How much do we know about these Al-Khiday people? Were their remains found in Egypt proper (or at least the area between first cataract and Egypt-Sudan border)?

Also, the JSA people apparently participated in tribal warfare, and some described it as a competition for resources. Now how likely do you think it was a result of rapid desertification? Were these skirmishes related to the decline of Nabta Playa population?

This below is my sugo imaginative scenario: Al-Khiday were basically a basal Eurasian + ANA population, and during the wet spell, some ventured southward into N.Sudan and probably mixed with Nilotes, then these people returned to Egypt with some staying in Upper Egypt and some settling in Lower Nubia. The ones in Egypt got admixed with other Al-Khiday people (the ones who did not went to Sudan) and later with PPNB farmers (be it direct or indirect), while those in lower Nubia and places near Aswan got admixed with a new wave of proto-Nilotes, then admixture between lower Nubia and Upper Egypt happened, probably through trade. Potentially it was a more southward movement as we see a disproportional distribution (meaning Naqada pottery became more demographically dominant and the amount A-Group-related pottery wanes) of Naqada and A-Group pottery.
Northerners moved to Abydos region during state formation (Naqada II, a mark of potential increased contact between delta and the rest of Egypt?), probably bringing in new waves of PPNB-related ancestry (and potentially very very limited Iran CHl, since Shimbiris mentioned OK Egyptians carry a little bit of Chl. I think this is a result of indirect contact between Sumerians and late Neolithic Egyptians which is probably shown on the styles of their palettes).

However all these imaginative scenarios do not answer the creation of Cushitic speakers.
I have seen people saying that Cushitics came into existence somewhere near the Red Sea Hills and are apparently a distinct group compared to Lower Nubians.
The other hypothesis is that some Lower Nubians got admixed with more Nilotic-related ancestry to the point they resemble the ENP population. And then, they settled in Kerma.

Btw, who were the Gebel Ramlah people? Do you think they were an intermediate population between Upper Egyptians and Lower Nubians like Irish described? It’s quite interesting because another paper said these GRM people would contribute little to Nile Valley population. Also, the paper by Joel Irish mentioned that Kharga and Early Dynastic Abydos are dentally similar, but aren’t people in Kharga just Libyans? Plus, Early Dynastic Abydos individuals formed their own morphological pattern, so does this indicate a distinct proportion of their ancestry compared to Nekhen and Naqada (yet again, Irish’s paper had Naqada, Abydos, and Nekhen being overall similar.)?

Last, Badarians were extremely gracile but somehow they displayed relatively high instances of sub-nasal prognathism. Additionally , they were always described as centroid of pre-dynastic and dynastic samples. Isn’t this quite peculiar as we know those with Nilotic ancestry tend to be more robust and overall just taller? Plus there were also craniometric studies that came to conclusions of discontinuity between Badarians and Naqadans, whereas at the same time tons of papers demonstrated population continuity between the two.