Lands of Red and Gold: Essay Contest Entry
Something different this time...
This post is an essay written as part of a contest over at counter-factual.net - the sort of contest where there's even an actual prize involved. Since it is an essay written within the perspective of the LRG timeline, I thought it was also appropriate to post it here.
Continuity note: The gist of this essay fits into the LRG timeline, including the references to modern authors, cities, nations etc. What should not be considered canon is the absolute dates given to the publication of the various ATL sources. I’ve still not determined the general rate of cultural, scientific and cultural progress in this TL. There are factors that pull both ways, such as reduced world population and economy thanks to Aururian plagues, but increased world population thanks to the spread of Aururian crops. There are also some consequences of Aururian contact which may contribute to the spread of the scientific world-view. Until I’ve determined those, the absolute dates listed here should not be taken as canon. (The relative dates between the various works are still more or less right.)
Stylistic note: The main essay text is written in normal font. Any brief OTL notations about places, cultures etc are marked in square brackets. The essay marker’s comments are in square brackets with blue italics [like this].
Anyway, on with the essay...
* * *
Q: Describe and evaluate the roles which geography, climate and native agriculture performed in the comparative cultural development of any two of the “cradles of civilization”.
Essay submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Fundamentals of Cultural History at Marlborough University, Suffolk [Alexandria, Virginia], Commonwealth of Virginia, Alleghania
1. Introduction
In its fundamentals, human culture is as old as the evolution of language, if not the evolution of the human species. For the purposes of historical analysis, however, the study of cultural history begins with the first cultures to develop writing, supplemented by what archaeology can reveal of their pre-literate development [1]. These cultures are traditionally referred to as cradles of civilization; while the value and connotations of this term have been disputed, it remains the most widely accepted name within cross-cultural studies [2]. [Redundant: this paragraph was unnecessary as the next one gives a useful introduction.]
While the number of cradles of civilization is debated, the main consensus is seven: the Euphrates and Tigris in Mesopotamia, the Nile in Egypt, the Indus Valley, the Yellow River in Cathay, the Nyalananga Valley [River Murray, Australia], the Tamochan [Olmecs], and Caral [Norte Chico civilization, in OTL modern Peru] [3]. Each of these centres had an independent origin of culture; the fundamentals of their worldviews developed without significant contributions from other cultures. This essay will examine two of these independent centres: Egypt along the Nile, and the Gunnagalic cultures that developed on the Nyalananga and its tributaries.
The concept of a cradle of civilization includes the inherent assumption that civilization largely develops alone [4]. Meaningful historical analysis of their development can only be conducted when there is limited fusion with other cultures. As such, this essay focuses mainly on the development of Egyptian culture until the Nubian invasion of 732 BC [5], and of the Gunnagalic cultures until the European irruption in 1619 AD.
After these dates, the cultural development of these two civilizations became part of the global cultural matrix, and separate analysis becomes much more difficult. Nevertheless, later I will briefly assess some of the major influences which Egypt and Gunnagalia had on the wider world.
[1] Baxter (1978), pp iv-vii
[2] Hubbard (1999), p496
[3] Ibid., pp501-503
[4] Didomede (1992), pp16-18
[5] It is true that Egypt reverted intermittently to native rule for some periods after this date, such as during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. Nevertheless, the Nubian intrusion and other foreign influences (Assyrian and Persian) meant that Egyptian culture had already been pulled out of its independent course. Refer also to al-Azm (2004), pp270-276.
2.1 Geography and Climate of Egypt
Egyptian culture has long been recognised for its remarkable features, notably its stability and impressive public works [6]. Its native religion endured nearly unchanged for over three millennia. Even in its early development it produced massive constructions which would survive until the present day. The geography and climate of Egypt played a determining role in shaping this distinctive culture.
Ancient Egyptian civilization was built on a single geographical anomaly: the River Nile. This river, the world’s longest, has a lower course which runs through one of the harshest deserts in the world. Such an arid climate would normally not sustain human life. Only the life-giving waters of the Nile allowed Egypt to support any meaningful human habitation, let alone become one of the cradles of civilization. The Nile and its desert surroundings shaped the development of the Egyptian civilization in its religion, in its political structure and stability, in its cultural outlook, and its entire society [7].
The Nile flows through a natural channel in the Sahara, forming a narrow band of arable land in otherwise overwhelming emptiness, culminating in the broad expanse of the Nile Delta. Ancient Egypt traces its cultural origins to this limited region, bound by the First Cataract and the Delta; a verdant but confined land.
[6] Trevitt (1982), pp24-27
[7] Ibid., pp29-33
2.2 Geography and Climate of Gunnagalia
Gunnagalia [8] is most recognised in modern popular culture for what its inhabitants were at the end of their independent development: a people of factions and football, of secretive physicians and many-spiced food, chewers of kunduri [a native nicotine-containing drug reminiscent of tobacco], and chain-mail clad armies marching to war. In reality, this popular impression marked merely the most recent phase in a long history of culture and technology which had progressed through many stages of development since the first proto-farmers started to cultivate red yams along the middle course of the Nyalananga’s journey to the sea.
As in Egypt, Gunnagalia’s culture was shaped by the geography and climate that bore it. Rising in the driest inhabitant continent, the Nyalananga is a much lower-volume river than most other rivers of its length. It drains about one-seventh of the Aururian [*Australian] land mass, over 400,000 square miles, forming the 17th largest drainage basin in the world, but in terms of average discharge volume, it is only the 44th largest river [9].
The Nyalananga basin is mostly extremely flat; rivers take a meandering, slow-flowing course through most of their length. Unlike Egypt, climate in the basin is not as unforgiving as that of the Nile. For most of the river’s length, there is moderate precipitation. Water-efficient plants can be sustained by rainfall alone, including the crops which started native agriculture. The river provides transportation, water for drinking and artificial wetlands, and floods which renew the soil, but is not the conditio sine qua non for human agriculture and life as is the Nile [10].
The geography and climate in the Nyalananga basin are distinctive for their unpredictability, and this contributed to Gunnagalia’s cultural development. The climate in south-eastern Aururia does not follow an annual cycle, but is instead dominated by longer-term variations of drought and intense rains. Rain cannot be relied on to fall at a particular time of year, or even in a given year. Severe droughts can endure for years, or be broken unpredictably by rainfall so heavy that it results in extensive flooding. In the flat topography of the Nyalananga basin, these floods can spread over fifty miles wide, and take months to subside [11]. In dry years, the native flora supports cataclysmic wildfires which bring devastation to wide areas. These chaotic, unpredictable extremes of climate shaped the Gunnagalic culture that developed in the cradle of the Nyalananga.
[8] Gunnagalia is the term which is used in this essay for the cultures that developed in the Nyalananga basin. It is also referred to as the Nyalananga Valley Civilization. Some scholars, including most historians, prefer to reserve the term Nyalananga Valley Civilization for the prehistoric phase of this cradle (ie the Archaic and Formative Eras before the Late Formative collapse), and use Gunnagalia when referring to the entire pre-1619 period. Other scholars, including most archaeologists, use the term Nyalananga Valley Civilization for all of the peoples who dwelt along the Nyalananga until the European irruption. Note that in linguistic scholarship, the term Gunnagalia has a different meaning, being used to refer to all of the speakers of Gunnagalic languages throughout eastern Aururia.
[9] Fletcher-Brown (1975), pp103-105.
[10] Ibid., pp108-115.
[11] Lawson (1959), p6.
2.3 Comparative Geography and Climate
In both Egypt and Gunnagalia, the developing civilizations centred on their respective rivers. The rivers provided the main form of transportation [12], and their waters sustained the people who lived along their banks.
The critical difference lay in the nature of flooding and general water flow, and the broader weather patterns which drove them. Egypt’s desert latitudes meant it was usually baked in year-round sun broken by occasional sandstorms. The Nile floods were a regular annual cycle which brought life-giving water and soil-replenishing silt to a land which otherwise had virtually no rainfall. Drought and flood failure formed a rare departure from these regular patterns. The rhythm and order of the Nile shaped the culture that developed along its banks [13].
The Nyalananga had no such regularity. Its flow was highly variable, dominated by irregular patterns of drought alternating with abundant rainfall, and some floods so extensive they were scourges, not blessings. Like the Nile floods, the floods on the Nyalananga could be triggered by unseen rainfall, especially tropical storms in the distant headwaters of the Anedeli [River Darling]. In some cases the cause of floods was unknown, while in other cases the floods were known to originate from more southerly rainfalls. This combination of knowledge and uncertainty contributed to a sense of irregularity for the peoples who dwelt along the Nyalananga and its tributaries [14].
The sudden and destructive presence of bushfires added to a sense of a landscape which could be full of hostility, but much less predictably than the relentless heat of the desert around the Nile. In short, the key feature of the geography and climate of the Nyalananga was unpredictability. The culture which it supported faced chaos, and developed a dramatically different worldview.
The other major difference in geography between Egypt and Gunnagalia was in their relative constraints and avenues to expansion. Egypt was largely confined to the Nile corridor and the Delta, with only narrow regions for potential expansion along the Mediterranean coast or further up the river. Gunnagalia had broader opportunities for expansion, with inhabitable lands to the south, east and north of its riverine heartland.
On the other hand, Egypt was geographically much closer to other cradles of civilization, particularly Mesopotamia, and other agricultural peoples. It also had access to the sea via the Nile Delta. In contrast, Gunnagalia was isolated from other agricultural peoples by deserts and oceans. The Nyalananga is also not navigable to the sea. These factors would also considerably affect the development of these two cradles of civilization.
[12] While the Nyalananga was a much less useful river for shipping than the Nile, due to variable water flow and frequent natural hazards, it still provided a viable transportation route.
[13] McDonnell & Hibbert (2003), pp348-351
[14] Fletcher-Brown (1975), pp110-111.
3. Cultural Consequences
3.1 Order and Unpredictability
As with all the cradles of civilization, there are myriad differences between the geography and climates of Egypt and Gunnagalia. From the perspective of cultural history, the most significant of these is the sense of order and predictability which the Nile brought to Egypt, and the sense of chaos and unpredictability which the Nyalananga brought to Gunnagalia. [Lacks justification. Why is this more important than, for example, the geographical isolation which prevented contact with non-Aururian cultures for nearly 4000 years?]
In both cases, the inhabitants did not know the true cause of this order or unpredictability. No-one in Egypt knew about the summer rains in the Ethiopian highlands that drove the annual floods; no-one in Aururia knew about the irregular temperature shifts in ocean temperatures in the Pacific and Indian oceans which drove their own patterns of flood and drought.
Without accurate knowledge, both peoples speculated on causes, and developed beliefs and outlooks which best fit the nature of the climate and geography they inhabited. The Egyptians saw the world as permanent and predictable, and developed a knowledge base, religion and social structure which emphasised this sense of permanence and hierarchy [15]. The Gunnagalic peoples viewed the world as essentially unpredictable, and focused their knowledge on practical effects, preparing for contingencies, and creating long-term plans that sought to create permanence where none could be found in nature [16].
This sense of stability and order is demonstrated in the architectural preferences of both civilizations. Egyptian architecture was built to endure; Gunnagalic architecture was built to be “good enough”. Notably, Egyptians built with stone at a much earlier stage of their development than Gunnagalia; most early buildings along the Nyalananga were made of rammed earth rather than stone. Egyptian architecture functioned in a climate where it needed little active maintenance, while Gunnagalic buildings were designed to be easily repairable or replaced [17].
These outlooks are typified by the public works popularly associated with the two civilizations. The Pyramids and Great Sphinx in Egypt have been weathered from their original forms, but remain largely intact. The artificial wetlands along the Nyalananga needed to be repaired every flood. The only pre-Houtmanian [ie before Dutch contact] waterworks which remain today are those which have been maintained more or less continuously since the European irruption.
[15] Harrison (1986), pp99-106
[16] Iverson (1992), pp211-217
[17] Agrippa (2006), pp380-382
3.2 Religion and Astronomy
The consequences of predictability and disorder are equally reflected in the religions and astronomy which developed in both civilizations [18]. Egyptian religion was shaped by the harshness of the desert, and the perception that the social order created in this world would be perpetuated in the world to come. While this is most popularly associated with the practice of mummification, in practice most aspects of Egyptian religion followed the same sense of order and stability, such as the explanations for the regular flooding of the Nile. This practice extended to their view of astronomy, such as with the alignment of the Pyramids to celestial events [19].
Gunnagalic cultures developed a complex set of complementary and sometimes contradictory belief systems to explain the irregular nature of their world. These religious beliefs varied over time and amongst the different cultures, since unlike Egypt, Gunnagalia did not develop a centralised belief structure [20]. [Dubious. The complexity and syncreticism of Gunnagalic beliefs could be equally explained by lack of political unity as by consequences of irregular climate.]
Nonetheless, Gunnagalic beliefs had some common elements, such as their view of time as a non-linear, ongoing process, and their belief in a variety of powerful spiritual beings who had influence over the world [21]. In Gunnagalia, religion became a search for permanence, a struggle for continuity. In time, this evolved into Plirism, a faith whose central tenet was the need to bring balance to the competing and often irregular forces of the world [22].
The connexion between order and disorder is further reflected in their respective systems of astronomy and astrology. Egypt, like most early civilizations, viewed astronomy based on a largely predictable annual cycle [23]. Egyptian astronomy began as a series of observations that predicted regular events, such as the heliacal rising of stars to foretell the Nile flood, and developed the required mathematics to predict other events such as eclipses. In common with most civilizations, Egypt also developed a form of astrology based on regular cycles (Decanic astrology), based on their underlying assumption of order [24].
With no meaningful basis for an annual cycle, Gunnagalic astronomy focussed on transient phenomena such as novas, comets, and meteors. Such irregular events might give some forewarning to the vicissitudes of drought, flood and bushfire. Gunnagalic astronomers gave little regard to regular astronomical events beyond the minimum of maintaining a calendar, but developed detailed records of transient phenomena [25]. Unlike other early civilizations, Gunnagalic astronomers did not even predict eclipses, treating them as merely another class of transient phenomena. Most tellingly, Gunnagalia was the only cradle of civilization which did not develop some form of cyclical astrology to predict the lives and times of people based on their dates of birth [26]. In their worldview, such predictability did not exist.
[18] As with most early civilizations, religion and astronomy were usually intertwined both in Egypt and Gunnagalia.
[19] While many of the more extreme claims of astronomical alignments for the Pyramids are rejected by mainstream scholarly consensus, some aspects such as its alignment with the cardinal directions are not disputed. See al-Azm (2004), pp398-412.
[20] Except for the state religion of the Watjubaga Empire (556-1124), and even this was largely imposed by the ruling elite and does not appear to have had popular belief, since its cult never endured after the withdrawal of imperial control from any given region. Refer also to Fletcher-Brown (1975), ch. 6.
[21] Baldock (2001), pp252-258.
[22] Plirism was a minority religion in most of Gunnagalia during the period under consideration, but its distinctive character was shaped by the geography and climate of the Nyalananga basin.
[23] Although Egypt’s annual cycle was that of the Nile flooding, rather than the passage of the seasons as in most other early civilizations.
[24] McDonnell & Hibbert (2003), pp505-509
[25] This development was epitomised in the non-Gunnagalic peoples of south-western Aururia (the Atjuntja and their predecessors), whose records of transient astral phenomena were unmatched in the pre-telescopic world. Their records of meteor showers, comets and novas are a valuable source of astronomical knowledge even in the present day. Indeed, the Atjuntja were the only pre-telescopic people to discover Caelus [Uranus].
[26] In so far as it can be determined. Insufficient evidence remains to determine whether the Indus Valley and Caral civilizations did not leave sufficient evidence to determine whether they had forms of astrology, although their descendant civilizations did. See also Fletcher-Brown (1975), pp187-191.
3.3 Political Conditions
Another distinctive feature of Egyptian civilization was its early political unification, due to the ease of transport on the Nile, and the geographical confinement to the Nile corridor and the Delta. In comparison to other cradles of civilization, Egypt united much earlier and remained politically united for most of its history, with only brief interruptions from foreign dynasties or local divisions. Most comparable early civilizations united much later, and had ongoing and much longer-lasting periods of division [27].
In comparison, the Nyalananga basin was politically disunited for most of its pre-Houtmanian history. Sources disagree as to whether this was a function of the rivers’ more limited transport capacity and erratic flow, a consequence of its perennial agriculture allowing more per worker productivity and thus supporting greater armed forces, or simply a quirk of history [28]. Regardless of the reason, Gunnagalia is the only cradle of civilization which was politically disunited for most of its history, with only a brief interval of unification under the Watjubaga Empire.
These differences extended to the nature of political rule. Absolute monarchs were common in Egypt, since the geography fostered strong central control. Absolute monarchy was a rare concept in Gunnagalia, practiced only during the Imperial period, and even then abandoned well before that period ended.
[27] Consider, for example, Cathay, which did not politically unify until comparatively later, and which experienced much longer periods of political division (eg Three Kingdoms and Southern & Northern Dynasties periods). See Murray et al (1879), vol. 1, Chapters 6-10.
[28] Knight (1988), pp176-182; Sanford (1993), chs 4 &5; Munro (1996), pp88-90.
3.4 Role of Native Agriculture
Unlike other cradles of civilization, Egypt did not develop native agriculture, relying instead on plants domesticated in the Fertile Crescent. Nevertheless, its agricultural wealth was remarkable by ancient standards. With the endless fertility replenishments of Nile silt, and abundant water for irrigation, Egyptian farmers could produce two plentiful harvests each year [29]. The productive capacity of this land far exceeded any of the other cradles of civilization [30]. The time of the Nile flood, when the fields were inundated, also meant that there was a time when the labour of farmers could be utilised for other purposes.
Uniquely among agricultural systems, Gunnagalic agriculture used perennial plants as staple crops. Perennial red yams, cornnarts [wattles] and murnong required relatively less labour to plant and harvest. In turn, this meant that per worker productivity was higher than in most other agricultural systems, and permitted a larger percentage of the population to be supported in non-farming roles [31]. The requirements of perennial agriculture also encouraged a longer-term attitude to land management.
Thus, for different reasons, both civilizations’ agricultural methods produced a larger labour surplus than other cradles of civilization. In both cases, this labour was applied to suit the elite’s preferences; preferences which were themselves shaped by the climate and geography of the respective regions. Egyptian labour was used for monuments and other public works; Gunnagalic labour was applied to produce artificial wetlands and waterworks whose produce benefitted everyone, although the elite more than others. [Good!]
[29] McDonnell & Hibbert (2003), pp364-5.
[30] Hopkins (2008), p694
[31] Sanford (1993), ch 5.
3.5 Influence of Other Civilizations
Egypt remained geographically constrained in its avenues for direct expansion, due to desert barriers and other equally advanced peoples with a history of agriculture. Its proximity to other cradles of civilization and their descendants (Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley) meant that it did not develop in complete isolation. Egypt remained culturally conservative for most of its history; understandably, given the rhythms of climate and geography which encouraged a sense of stability. Nevertheless, the geographical proximity opened it to more influences, most notably the invasion of the Hyksos, who introduced chariots and composite bows to Egypt [32], and thus contributed both to technological progress and cultural contamination [33].
In contrast, Gunnagalia developed in isolation, separated both by distance and geographical barriers (deserts and oceans) from the nearest agricultural peoples. However, the local barriers were not so severe as they were in Egypt. This allowed Gunnagalia to expand its cultural influence over vast parts of Aururia during the Great Migrations (900 BC – 200 AD), with no significant competition except the minor Junditmara eel-farmers [34]. [No! You’re neglecting the major Junditmara contribution to early Nyalananga civilization: artificial wetlands were one of the earliest functions of civilization there, requiring social organisation and hierarchies, and were imported whole-scale from the Junditmara. You should be aware of this since Fletcher-Brown herself explains this – refer to Chapter 8, which describes aquaculture in detail.]
The other facet of geography which affected contact with other civilizations was the difference in the Nile and Nyalananga river mouths. In common with all cradles of civilization which developed on river systems, Egypt and Gunnagalia had the convenience of an internal transportation network which allowed for rapid communication and commerce within their own borders. However, the Nyalananga had one important facet of riverine geography which distinguished it from the Nile and other major river systems: the Nyalananga is not navigable from the sea.
Without a clear outlet to the sea, Gunnagalia was inhibited in its development of oceanic shipping or commerce beyond the confines of their founding river system. This lead to a cultural predilection for land-based and riverine commerce to the neglect of open-water navigation, which persisted even when the Gunnagalic peoples expanded beyond the Nyalananga.
In comparison, Egypt had overseas commerce by the time of contact with the Minoans by 2000 BC, if not earlier, and also sent ships along the Red Sea. The Gunnagalic peoples remained largely land-based for centuries after the Great Migrations. Even when they did venture into the seas, they did so hesitantly. While a few Gunnagalic peoples developed some experience in navigating the open seas, principally the Nangu and Kiyungu, they were much more limited than comparative peoples in their commerce. It took the arrival of the external influence of Polynesian navigational techniques after 1310 to produce meaningful deep-water commerce amongst the Gunnagalic peoples [35]. [You’re neglecting another important facet of geography: the hostility of the open seas near Aururia. The Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea have much better weather and prevailing wind conditions than most of Aururia’s coastal waters, which favoured the development of oceanic commerce in Egypt but hindered it in Aururia.]
[32] McDonnell & Hibbert (2003), pp442-444.
[33] Using this word in a morally neutral sense, since the Hyksos invasion meant that their culture had spread into a different cell in the global cultural matrix.
[34] Fletcher-Brown (1975), pp188-196.
[35] Ngahui (1987), pp213-218.
3.6 Global Cultural Contributions
The modern cultural influence of Egypt is often difficult to discern once their culture had fused with the broader West Eurasian matrix, except in directly Egyptian-inspired art and architecture. This is because Egypt had indirect influence through its transmission of ideas and technology into Greek and Arabic cultures, and thence to broader European and Middle Eastern cultures. Many technologies and fields of knowledge of originally Egyptian origin became widespread in other cultures, such as papyrus, mathematics, glass-working and astronomy [36], although these influences have been shaped and reshaped by the other cultures which transmitted them.
Gunnagalic culture was more limited in its fields of influence, due to its development as a distinctive culture for millennia, but that same isolation means that even after its culture fused into the broader global matrix, its influence is easier to trace. The Gunnagalic preoccupation with finding meaningful outcomes during uncertainty led to a field of practical inquiry in medicine, and to physicians who were in many respects more advanced than those of their contemporaries elsewhere in the world, such as the first effective antiseptic [37]. Gunnagalic physicians also compared each other’s success in treating medical cases, which in time led to the concept of peer review, and which generalised to the comparison and evaluation of modern science. [No! These comparison methods were not exclusive to Gunnagalic doctors. Medieval Islam had a similar practice, and it didn’t lead to a scientific revolution there. The practices of the Gunnagal may have led to modern peer review (an arguable case), but they were not exclusive to the Nyalananga Valley civilizations, so you haven’t built a case that this is due to any of their features of geography and climate.] Gunnagalic long-term land management, a derivation of their perennial agriculture, has also inspired much of the modern conservation movement [38].
The field of religion is one of the most significant contributors to cultural development [39]. In this aspect, Gunnagalia made a much greater contribution to the modern cultural matrix than Egypt. Native Egyptian religion, due to its particular development in an ordered geography, became much more bound to its particular land. It did not naturally adapt to other regions, and did not develop into a form which made religious expansion suitable. Egyptian religion did not have much influence on broader culture, with the minor exception of some individual and short-lived cults such as that of Isis in Greco-Roman society [40].
In comparison, Gunnagalic religion, in the form of Plirism, proved to be more versatile in adapting to the wider world, since it first needed to adapt to the changing geography and unpredictable climate of its own region, and the competing political entities of a region which was geographically harder to unify. This led to a faith which became one of the world’s few evangelical religions, and which after European irruption spread far beyond its original geographical confines to become one of the world’s major religions [41].
[36] Harrison (1986), pp156-161.
[37] Iverson (1992), pp282-284.
[38] Blunt (2004), pp8-10.
[39] Didomede (1992), pp45-48.
[40] Egyptian religious influence was limited unless Hartwood’s thesis is correct, namely that Atenism was an influence for the founding of Judaism, and thus indirectly all of the Abrahamic religions. Mainstream scholars reject this interpretation, however. Refer to al-Azm (2004), ch. 12, for a review.
[41] Plirism is either the fourth or the fifth-largest religion in the modern world, depending on how adherents of Buddhism are calculated. [A source or two would be nice here.]
4. Conclusion
The Nile and the Nyalananga centre on two regions with vastly different climates and geography, and which shaped two of the cradles of civilization. The combined influence of order and chaos, of regularly and unpredictability, of geographical isolation or proximity, produced two distinctive civilizations which both contributed to the modern cultural matrix.
5. Bibliography
Agrippa, H. (2006). Under Gundabingee: Excavating the Middle Formative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
al-Azm, Youssef Pasha (2004). New Perspectives in Egyptology. Cairo: Basirah
Baldock, Y.B. (2001). “Religious Iconography and Beliefs in Classical Gundabingee”. Journal of Gunnagalic Studies 44(2): 242–268.
Baxter, Martin (1978). Progression and Purpose: Understanding Modern Society Through Its Cultural Antecedents. New London [Charleston, South Carolina]: Unwin & Allen.
Blunt, R. (2004). Seeds of Conservation: Managing our Future. London: Sinclair & Blackford.
Didomede, Juno (1992). One Out of Many: The Development of the Global Cultural Synthesis. London: Hoover House.
Fletcher-Brown, Miranda (1975). Understanding Aururia. Cumberland [Geelong, Victoria]: Chelsea Todd.
Harrison, J.G. (1986). Of Pharaohs and Goat-Headed Gods. Kesteven [Boston]: Heron.
Hopkins, Verity (2008). New Learnings on Early Origins: What Archaeology Tells Us. Cumberland: Moths Head Press.
Hubbard, Douglas R. (1999). Toward Explaining Human Culture: Findings From the Fusion of Disciplines. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.
Iverson, Courage (1992). Finding the Balance. Cumberland: Cosmic Hand.
Knight, W. (1988). The Classical Gunnagal. Libra [San Francisco]: Monte Verde.
Lawson, Concord (1959). Surviving the ’52 Floods. Jugara [Victor Harbor, South Australia]: Black Dawn
McDonnell, Jamis & Hibbert, E. E. (2003). Social Atlas of Ancient Egypt. Horeb [Providence, Rhode Island]: Benedict Clayton.
Munro, B. (1996). Crossing Over. Acevedo [Albuquerque, New Mexico]: Winterhome.
Murray, Peter; Crawford, Hannibal; & Boyd, John (1879). An historical and descriptive account of Cathay. London & Edinburgh: Gordon & Porter. 3 volumes.
Ngahui, Gloire (1987). Ancient Navigators in Polynesia. Maunga [Auckland, New Zealand]: Duchesne.
Sanford, Julius (1993). Cannon, Clocks and Crops: The Destinies of Human Societies. Newport [New Haven, Connecticut]: Winthrop & Jessup.
Trevitt, Christobel (1982). Ancient Egypt: Dissecting a Civilisation. Cologne: Weisspferd.
* * *
Thoughts?
