Rahotep, to prevent derailing the picture thread, we can discuss your quotations regarding the Naqadans here.
First, I'm going to adress your manipulation of Derry
The untampered with quote of Douglass goes as follows:
quote:The Predynastic people are seen to have had narrow skulls with a height measurement exceeding the breadth, a condition common also in negroes. The reverse is the case in the Dynastic Race, who not only had broader skulls but the height of these skulls, while exceeding that in the Predynastic Race, is still less than the breadth. This implies a greater cranial capacity and of course a larger brain in the invading people. -Douglas Derry
Nowhere does he add in ''the dynastic race who appear on the scene in Naqada II era cemeteries'', and I suggest you refrain from inserting words in your quotations, for the sake of your own credibility here on ES.
Now that thats out of the way, lets start with how your quotation of Derry fits your earlier claims regarding that the ancients were the same as the moderns, and then we'll go on to discuss the specifics; population affinity of the Naqadans, and exactly what Naqada II burials display differentiation, according to you.
Explain to me the following: how can your claim that Ancient Egypt was the same in modern and ancient times hold up to what your own sources say? For whatever serious flaws your Douglass Derry quotation has, he says predynastic people (not only those of Naqada I as you've fraudulently manipulated your Douglass quote to propose) are indigenous, and he thinks of post 1st dynasty as significantly different, in the absence of multivariate analysis, and relying solely on Basion/bregma length and Cranial length and breadth.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: As for negroids living in Naqada in predynastic times, they evidently shared the neighbourhood with caucasoids. Of the Gebelein sand mummies, one was auburn haired and two brown haired, including a woman who had long, straight, light brown hair (two of said mummies were historically nicknamed 'Ginger' and 'Gingerella'). These mummies also appear to retain areas of light coloured skin.
Are you interested in sharing quotations of cranial studies done on Naqadans where they cluster with Ca-cazoids?
From Anthropologist Douglas Derry (1956): 'The predynastic people seem to have had a narrow skull with a height measurement exeeding the breadth, a condition common also in negroes. The reverse is the case of the Dynastic Race [who appear on the scene in Naqada II era cemeteries] who not only had broader skulls but the height of the skulls, while exceeding that of the Predynastic Race, is still less than the breadth. This implies a larger cranial capacity and of course a larger brain in the invading people'.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: The reverse is the case in the Dynastic Race, who not only had broader skulls but the height of these skulls, while exceeding that in the Predynastic Race, is still less than the breadth. -Douglas Derry
(gay thread title?) Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Sorry to derail a visual spamfest with an actual discussion of historical evidence...
I inserted the bit about the foreigners appraring at the start of the Naqada II phase to clarify what Derry was taking about. Square brackets mean that the stuff they contian is not part of the original quote. This is well known by people who know anything. I was therefore not tampering with the quote but putting it in context.
Derry was indeed a proponent of the idea of a foreign elite arriving at that time. His anthropological evidence only supported the archeological evidence that Petrie and Murray documented. (I.e. cylindrical roll-seals, lapis lasuli inlay, pear-shaped mace-heads, various forms of pottery, architecture, symbols and decorative motifs deriving from Mesopotamia). This stuff all appears in Naqada II (also called Gerzean) but not in Naqada I (Amratian).
Derry went on: 'It is also very suggestive of the presence of a dominant race, perhaps relatively few in number but greatly exceeding the original inhabitants in intelligence: a race which brought into Egypt the knowledge of building in stone, of sculture, painting, reliefs and above all writing; hence the enormous jump from the primitive predynastic Egyptian to the advanced civilization of the Old Empire.'
While distancing himself from the racial-supremacism of the earlier scholars, Rohl, a modern Egyptologist, supports the essence of the claim. He concludes: 'There is clear archaeological evidence of an influx of foreigners into the Nile valley in the Nakada II period. These people introduced new technologies - particularly in warfare - and buried their deceased in a different way to the folk of Nakada I. Anthropological examination of the two burial populations show marked differences, with the newcomers of Nakada II exhibiting Armenoid Characteristics...'
By the way, the bit about the heigh measurement of the newcomers skulls refers to the cranium, not the front of the skull and the face. Obviously everyone's face is longer than it is wide!
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Neolithic contacts between Western Asia and Egypt include the transmission of lithic technologies such as the Helwan retouch (Gopher 1993), domesticated plants and animals sometime after 6000 B.C. (Wetterstrom-1993), and maceheads (Cialowicz 1989). Chalcolithic contacts include the transfer of metallurgical technology and raw materials through the trading entrepot at Maadi (Rizkana and Seeher 1989, Seeher 1990). Uruk-related material in Egypt which may be dated to the middle Naqada II horizon includes the introduction of cylinder seals, lapis lazuli, and stylistic influences on locally produced knife handles (Crowfoot-Payne 1968; Boehmer 1974a, b; Midant-Reyes 1987; Smith 1992; Sievertsen 1992; Pittman 1996; Bavay 1997).
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
To reiterate some of the finds that indicate Mesopotamian influence in the Predynastic:
From ancient Sumeria and from late-Pre or Early Dynastic Egypt:
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Other probable Syro-Mesopotamian elements in mid-to-late Naqada II art include the "master of animals" motif, winged griffins, serpent-headed panthers, and intertwined beasts (Kantor 1992:15, fig. 6; Smith 1992). All figure prominently in Uruk-period glyptic, especially from Susa, and appear in Egypt individually and in clusters in contexts such as the Painted Tomb at Hierakonpolis and the Gebel el-Arak knife handle. The incorporation of these motifs further illustrates the impact of Egypto-Mesopotamian interaction--not simply emulation by Egypt but reinterpretation of foreign iconography to fit existing and developing ideological needs (see generally Bard 1992a, Hassan 1992).
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
quote:Other probable Syro-Mesopotamian elements in mid-to-late Naqada II art include the "master of animals" motif, winged griffins, serpent-headed panthers, and intertwined beasts (Kantor 1992:15, fig. 6; Smith 1992). All figure prominently in Uruk-period glyptic, especially from Susa, and appear in Egypt individually and in clusters in contexts such as the Painted Tomb at Hierakonpolis and the Gebel el-Arak knife handle. The incorporation of these motifs further illustrates the impact of Egypto-Mesopotamian interaction--not simply emulation by Egypt but reinterpretation of foreign iconography to fit existing and developing ideological needs (see generally Bard 1992a, Hassan 1992).
Good points. The enigmatic 'master of Animals' motif crops up often in ancient Mesopotamia.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The enigmatic 'master of Animals' motif crops up often in ancient Mesopotamia. [/QB]
It was also known in the Indus Valley.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
And oddly echoed by the Anglo Saxons...
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
I mentioned the direction in which to go first, but we can also do it the other way around, fine by me.
You're right about the brackets thing. Your insertion still falls flat though, until you provide a quote where he says Naqadan II specimens differ significantly from earlier samples, and what cemetery his samples come from.
What I understand from Derry, is that his ''Dynastic race'' is to be taken literal, as in: ''the people from the dynastic era onwards''. Using three variables, he contrasts predynastic remains with dynastic remains, not Predynastic with Predynastic, and his meassurements show that a break occurs in the early dynastic, not in predynastic times.
quote:It should be said here that this paper deals only with the earliest cemeteries of both Predynastic and Early Dynastic date. As time went on, the mixture of the two races obscured the outstanding differences so clearly demonstrated in the earlier graves. -Derry
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep: Derry was indeed a proponent of the idea of a foreign elite arriving at that time. His anthropological evidence only supported the archeological evidence that Petrie and Murray documented.
You've got it all wrong, it is a well known fact that Petrie retracted his bullshit regarding ''the great new race'', and managed to patch up this blunder by introducing his dating method. Even Derry agrees, apparently:
The first Predynastic cemeteries were discovered by Professor Flinders Petrie in 1895 at Nakadah on the west bank of the Nile, a few miles north of Luxor. At first he believed he had found a 'new race', but later it was shown that these people were the autochthonous inhabitants of the Nile valley.
quote: Originally posted by Rahotep: Derry went on: 'It is also very (....)
No, Derry doesn't go on to say what you're putting in his mouth, namely, that significant difference appear in Naqada II. Evidence for this is in the very quote you provide. I suggest you take another look at it:
'It is also very suggestive of the presence of a dominant race, perhaps relatively few in number but greatly exceeding the original inhabitants in intelligence: a race which brought into Egypt the knowledge of building in stone, of sculture, painting, reliefs and above all writing; hence the enormous jump from the primitive predynastic Egyptian to the advanced civilization of the Old Empire.'
There is also a huge disconnect between the Naqada II innovations you mention, and the mostly early dynastic, or better said - perceived to be early dynastic - innovations he mentions, eg writing, reliefs, building in stone.
quote: Originally posted by Rahotep: Anthropological examination of the two burial populations show marked differences, with the newcomers of Nakada II exhibiting Armenoid Characteristics...'
Using what data? ''Armenoid'' is the term old anthropologist used to refer to heightened brachycephalic elements, but as Derry's data points out, there is no break in the predynastic max cranial breadth and length.
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep: By the way, the bit about the heigh measurement of the newcomers skulls refers to the cranium, not the front of the skull and the face. Obviously everyone's face is longer than it is wide!
And you feel compelled to point that out, because?
To be frank, and to make sure you don't misconstrue why I'm debating you on this front, I don't give a sh!t about what Derry thinks, as his work is still outdated, like I said, he doesn't employ multivariate analysis. I'm only in this to refute your claims about the Naqadans, using your own sources, as you've already demonstrated to have a blind spot whenever other sources are posted.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
I ask that every non-trolling person stays out of this (trolls, do as you please, you will get ignored), to prevent that it becomes easy for Rahotep to ignore the points I raise, and respond selectively to other arguments at the expense of the purpose of this thread.
Thanks
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
...[Never mind]...
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
The burials in question were located in the same vicinity, near the modern village of Naqada. Petrie identified it as the lost ancient town of Nubt or Ombos. Petrie excavated thousands of predynastic graves there, designating the earlier type 'Nakada 1' and the later, more elaborate burials 'Nakada 2', in an area designated 'Cemetary T'. Different pottery and burial customs were found in these, and it is these that Detty was describing, apparently finding them to be of a different race to the indigenous people of the earlier burials.
Nakada II artifacts show foreign traits absent from earlier finds. Everything seems to point to new arrivals (possibly from the Persian Gulf) turning up and jump-starting Dynastic civilization. If Derry's terminology was unclear the general picture seems clear enough. Obviously what he and Perie called the 'Dynastic Race' would have had to have been in place some while before the actual first dynasty arose. No one says a bunch of Sumerians arrived and immediately started building pyramids or writing hieroglyphics, but the precursors of dynastic civilization do only start to appear after Nakada II, especially in Nakada III.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:The burials in question were located in the same vicinity, near the modern village of Naqada. Petrie identified it as the lost ancient town of Nubt or Ombos. Petrie excavated thousands of predynastic graves there, designating the earlier type 'Nakada 1' and the later, more elaborate burials 'Nakada 2', in an area designated 'Cemetary T'.
I already told you that Petrie retracted his dynastic race theory, and that Derry agreed. As if your the dynastic race theory wasn't already extremely fringe and abandoned, you're completely on your own, and you don't even realise it. David Rohl is not a Biological Anthropologist, and neither did he perform any meassurements on Naqada II remains.
Prowse and Lovell did perform analysis on cemetery T, B and N (N being the cemetery that Petrie deemed ''the great race'') remains in a 1996 study, using a battery of 58 traits (contrast that with Derry's meagre three variables), and none diverge away from Egyptians in an abnormal manner (eg ''Armenoid''), instead, in the time periods where you and David Rohl say there should be ''Armenoids'', there is only one departion of Egyptian samples, and that is towards the terminal A group Sudani sample. That David Rohl appears to be talking out of his behind, can be gleaned from the fact that out of all studied Egyptian cemeteries (N, B, Badari and Qena), the elite Naqada II cemetery appears the closest to terminal A-group Sudanis per the MMD values. So much for your dynastic race bullcrap.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Obviously he will just ignore such evidence as that seems to be the M.O. I'm getting at this guy.
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton:
quote:Neolithic contacts between Western Asia and Egypt include the transmission of lithic technologies such as the Helwan retouch (Gopher 1993), domesticated plants and animals sometime after 6000 B.C. (Wetterstrom-1993), and maceheads (Cialowicz 1989). Chalcolithic contacts include the transfer of metallurgical technology and raw materials through the trading entrepot at Maadi (Rizkana and Seeher 1989, Seeher 1990). Uruk-related material in Egypt which may be dated to the middle Naqada II horizon includes the introduction of cylinder seals, lapis lazuli, and stylistic influences on locally produced knife handles (Crowfoot-Payne 1968; Boehmer 1974a, b; Midant-Reyes 1987; Smith 1992; Sievertsen 1992; Pittman 1996; Bavay 1997).
I've said this to you in another thread and I will say it again. Trade of goods is not the same as formative element or influence.
He [Gunther Dreyer] concluded his presentation by noting similarities between specific Egyptian and Mesopotamian objects and suggesting that perhaps there is an initial influence of Egyptian writing on Mesopotamia because there are signs on Mesopotamian objects that are only "readable" from the standpoint of the Egyptian language, but not the Mesopotamian language. - Mario Beatty, "Too Much Stuff": Recent Finds in Predynastic Egypt
By the way, little girl do you not know that the Natufians who began agriculture in the Near East were African immigrants in the first place??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaDum1_01: To reiterate some of the finds that indicate Mesopotamian influence in the Predynastic:
From ancient Sumeria and from late-Pre or Early Dynastic Egypt:
And where is the evidence that one is derived from the other or that the original was Sumerian?? Could it not be common coincidence since many ancient cultures venerated serpents?
quote:
Okay? And what do these figures have to do with Egypt??
As far as the master of animals theme, do you not realize that there is an image in the Sahara that predates the Sumerian one??
Details from a tomb painting from Hierakonpolis, from prehistoric Egypt's Naqada culture. A new study suggests the Naqada people, the earlier Badarians and the later Egyptians were essentially the same group. The painting shows a procession of boats, one of which has an awning "sheltering a figure who is probably the ruler and the person for whom the tomb was built," writes Toby Wilkinson in the book Predynastic Egypt. The artwork shows "the ruler engaged in various activities—including a ritual water-borne procession, perhaps an ancestor of some of the later festivals of kingship," Wilkinson writes, and "sought to express the multiple roles of the king in relation to his people and the supernatural." Remarkable, he adds, "is the number of features characteristic of classic Egyptian art," present already 300 years before pharaohs inaugurated classic Egyptian civilization by unifying the land around 3,100 B.C. A man holding apart two wild animals in the lower left is a type of "hero" or "master of the beasts" figure found in other artworks of its time, Wilkinson adds. Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
When we have detailed similarities it cannot be easily dismissed as "common coincidence". You dont have to be a hyperdiffusionist to see that cultural influence spread out from the Nile Valley to other parts of the world.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:
LOL The figurines above are obviously of different styles and provenance, with the Egyptian ones all indicative of the African Nile.
Let's start with the female figurines. Females cupping their breasts are a universal gesture of fecundity and are found in many cultures throughout the ancient world.
As far as the female icon with upraised curved arms, I've explained to you before what that was and how its expression is totemic.
It is most helpful to search among surviving Nilotic tribes, such as the Dinka of the White Nile, to gain insight into the material and spiritual life of the early predynastic Egyptians. The Dinka, who were studied intensively by anthropologists during the first half of the twentieth century, were a herding society that did some farming an a little hunting. Their value system and social life revolved, to a large extent, around their cattle, which provided them with food, drink, and clothing as well as inspiration in song and dance. While ther ewere rich pasture-lands along the riverbanks, during floods the herds had to be moved to the unsettled savanna at a higher elevation. Human settlements were on outcroppings that kept villagers dry. Although the Dinka tribespeople interviewed by the anthropologist Godfrey Lienhardt professed a belief in a supreme divinity, they also had clan divinities, which often took the emblem of a particular animal. As the Dinka explained it, if a clan took a giraffe or an elephant as its clan divinity, it did not mean that divinity was present in all such animals, but it did require that such animals be treated with respect. The divinity represented by the animal is one and apart: so if by some great tragedy all the giraffes were to be exterminated, the spirit of ancestral Giraffe would endure and would help to protect the clan. Thus it was not the individual animal member but the concept Giraffe that belonged to a wider class of powers. "It seems that the Dinka themselves often think of them as acquired by chance-- a chance association, though an important one, between the founding ancestor of a clan and the species, which then becomes the clan divinity of all his descendants. Because the surviving emblems from predynastic Egypt show falcons, cows, hippopotamuses, and gazelles, and among the names of the first kings of the historic period are Catfish and Scorpion, and later dieties appear as crocodiles, lionesses, vultures, and ibises, it is tempting to see here the vestiges of early clan divinities. The prehistoric schematic clay figurines of human shape (and of both sexes) with arms gracefully raised and bent inward, usually above the head but sometimes positioned more forward, bear a striking resemblance to the Dinka photographed by Leinhardt. In these photographs the Dinka dance with just such curved, rasied arms. According to Lienhardt, the Dinka are portraying the sweeping horms of a "display ox." So important and central to their socieity are the cattle they keep, that Dinka youths are reported, when sitting by themselves alone with their herd, as holding their arms extended and curved in just this position. This could explain why the few predynastic figurines that appear to be seated still exhibit this formation of the arms.--Barbara S. Lesko, The Great Goddesses of Egypt
Besides, there are no female icons displaying such gestures in Mesopotamia, though there are in Nubia! Also the figurine also exhibits steatopygia (big buttocks) which Petrie himself remarked as a "negroid" trait.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
As far as the male statues, most of them are wearing sheep skin clothes which is taboo to the Egyptians and no Egyptian statue is portrayed as having the hand gestures that the Sumerian men have.
Take the so-called 'MacGregor Man' of predynastic Egypt for example...
^ He is bearded, yes but his beard is not curled or layered like Sumerian depictions. His eyebrows are thick but they do not meet in the middle like the uni-browed Sumerians. Also he stands with his arms and hands straight down by his sides which is a common stance to be repeated throughout dynastic times. Instead of the thick brimmed round hat worn by Sumerians, instead he wears a tight fitting round cap seen in dynastic times worn by gods like Ptah but interestingly is also found worn by African men like the Puntites. He is also wearing a penis-sheath something worn by tribal African groups in Sudan and Ethiopia!
Here is Naqada statue of a male figure, one without a penis sheath.
And here is a reconstruction from Egyptologists of what the statue above looked like with its head as well as what the entire Naqada settlement may have looked like.
Oh my. It looks awfully African. Perhaps the Egyptologists who recreated this were Afrocentric as well. LOL
As for the pottery, the similarities in color and the use of geometric designs are superficial at best. What they actually depict if one takes a closer look is more revealing. The Sumerian one depicting an ibex (wild goat) and the Egyptian one depicting an (African) antelope. The actual make and model of the pottery despite color and geometric symbols are obviously different as NO archaeologist has ever claimed Egyptian pottery to be derived from Mesopotamia or elsewhere outside of Africa! In fact pottery in Africa predates ANYTHING in the Near East!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: When we have detailed similarities it cannot be easily dismissed as "common coincidence". You dont have to be a hyperdiffusionist to see that cultural influence spread out from the Nile Valley to other parts of the world.
There is nothing exactly detailed about it. You have animals each having serpentine enclosed necks. Again, serpents were revered in many cultures in the ancient world so serpent symbolism is indeed widespread. I don't exactly deny any influence, my question is where exactly is the evidence of it? It could very well be possible the source was the Nile Valley since we know diffusion occurred during mesolithic times with the Mushabian emigration to the Levant the introduction of African figs, grass foraging, and microlithic tools, and then again cattle by the Harifians.
Posted by ANGUISH_OF_BEANS_AND_DODO (Member # 6729) on :
I hear ya loud and clear bros. In realtime, i'll do the best i can to help acheive our dreams Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
And where is the evidence that one is derived from the other or that the original was Sumerian??
Could it not be common coincidence since many ancient cultures venerated serpents?
quote:
As far as the master of animals theme, do you not realize that there is an image in the Sahara that predates the Sumerian one??
Djehuti, stop being ridiculous. One of these is obviously a copy of the other. You have not even shown other mythological animals with abnormally long necks but further these, both lioness' like me, are in a very specific particular symmetrical configuration with their necks intertwined and heads facing each or. This was not a coincidence.
stop trying too hard. Deal with this reality
Which one came first is unknown, both items have not been precisely dated.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Okay? And what do these figures have to do with Egypt??
Look:
The opposite side of the handle shows Mesopotamian influence featuring the god El, wearing Mesopotamian clothing, flanked by two upright lions symbolizing the Morning and Evening Stars The Gebel el-Arak Knife is a 25.50 cm long knife dating from circa 3300 to 3200 BC, the late pre-dynastic period in Egypt, which when it was purchased in Cairo was said to have been found at the site of Gebel el-Arak, south of Abydos. The knife is on display at the Musée du Louvre, (Accession number E 11517). Another knife of similar materials but worn and battered, is conserved at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
^^^^how can you escape this, the God El in Mesopotamian clothing on an Egyptian knife ???
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Dj we had discussed whether or not this was a beard or part of the headgear,I at least think it's part of the head gear.
quote:He is bearded, yes but his beard is not curled or layered like Sumerian depictions. His eyebrows are thick but they do not meet in the middle like the uni-browed Sumerians. Also he stands with his arms and hands straight down by his sides which is a common stance to be repeated throughout dynastic times.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Guys, Kalonji asked us not to participate in this discussion and he was going to just ignore the trolls.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
OK!!!understood,..
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Guys, Kalonji asked us not to participate in this discussion and he was going to just ignore the trolls.
^Indeed
Granted, they didn't necessarily respond to Rahotep, but as we see in his previous posts, his case of skeletal differentiation in Naqada II is exclusively reliant on artifacts that are alleged to have Mesopotamian inspiration, since Derry doesn't seem to have said the things Rahotep is ascribing to him.
I don't see why we should alleviate him out of his responsibility to provide evidence that ''Armenoid'' elements appeared in Naqada II, or even appeared at all, which is exactly what shifting the discussion away from skeletal remains to artifacts does. Every layman dunce can point out similarities between a select few Nile Valley artifacts and Mesopotamian ones, but only sound multivariate analysis can conclusively show that penetration of differentiated people occured. Therefore, by allowing yourselves to get distracted into debating them on the artistic front - which they do out of lack of skeletal support in the first place - you guys are only setting yourself up for never ending discussions.
Which is fine, just do it elsewhere please. There are enough threads about Naqada art and whether or not that negligible amount is inspired by Mesopotamian antecedents.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
The 'Armenoid' concept seems to be Rohl's. He goes so far as to postulate Zagros mountain origins. The acumulation of archarological evidence for Sumerian influcence seems to be compelling, the most direct corellation being on the Gebel el Arak knife.
Elephants and twisted snakes in no way discredit the correspondence of the serpent-necked felines, (serpopards) which is a specific device trasplanted one way or the other. The Sumerian version above appears on a cylindrical seal from Uruk, about 3000 years BC. Around the same age as the Narmer Palette. Cylinder seals are known to be a Mesopotamian invention, also used in Egypt between the late predynastic and middle kingdom. Seals found in Egypt, according to Petrie's contemporary, Dutch archaeologist Henri Frankford,showed 'by their very material and by their deasign to have been made in Mesopotamia during the second half of the protoliterate period'.
The iconography on the early seals includes mythical aminals typical of Mesopotamian culture. Petrie found one such at a Nakada II grave, including 'the griffin with horizontal wings which Amiet has shown comes specifically from Susa'.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The 'Armenoid' concept seems to be Rohl's. He goes so far as to postulate Zagros mountain origins. The acumulation of archarological evidence for Sumerian influcence seems to be compelling, the most direct corellation being on the Gebel el Arak knife.
Elephants and twisted snakes in no way discredit the correspondence of the serpent-necked felines, (serpopards) which is a specific device trasplanted one way or the other. The Sumerian version above appears on a cylindrical seal from Uruk, about 3000 years BC. Around the same age as the Narmer Palette. Cylinder seals are known to be a Mesopotamian invention, also used in Egypt between the late predynastic and middle kingdom. Seals found in Egypt, according to Petrie's contemporary, Dutch archaeologist Henri Frankford,showed 'by their very material and by their deasign to have been made in Mesopotamia during the second half of the protoliterate period'.
The iconography on the early seals includes mythical aminals typical of Mesopotamian culture. Petrie found one such at a Nakada II grave, including 'the griffin with horizontal wings which Amiet has shown comes specifically from Susa'.
This is exactly what I mean. The only reason he's even able to make this irrelevant post (it doesn't belong in this thread) and pass it for some kind of relevant answer is because people couldn't resist responding to Simplegirls off topic post.
Rahotep, if you think you're off the hook that easily you're mistaken, this thread is not about Naqada II artefacts. Exotic materials and motifs occur in most civilizations. You said earlier that Derry held that the skeletons in Naqada II elite cemeteries were significantly differentiated from preceeding Naqada I remains, and that they supposedly tended towards ''Caucasoids'' in cranial size. Where is the data that you so confidently refer to, but never show?
quote:Derry was indeed a proponent of the idea of a foreign elite arriving at that time.
quote:As for negroids living in Naqada in predynastic times, they evidently shared the neighbourhood with caucasoids.
quote:The quote is given in David Rohl's book 'Legend: the Genesis of Civilization'. It actually compares the types of skull found from people of the Naqada I and II era burials from the same site.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QUOTE]The quote is given in David Rohl's book 'Legend: the Genesis of Civilization'. It actually compares the types of skull found from people of the Naqada I and II era burials from the same site.
a review in Amazon summarizing Rohl's alternative theory book:
By Emmet Sweeney - See all my reviews This review is from: Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation (Paperback) This book is an enjoyable and informative read, with David Rohl displaying his usual erudition and flair for explanation. The chapters dealing with the rise of the first civilizations are particularly intriguing, and the proofs listed of early Mesopotamian influence on Proto- and Early Dynastic Egypt have arguably put the question of Egyptian origins beyond dispute. Unlike most mainstream Egyptologists, Rohl is not afraid to question conventional dates and dating-systems, and his own "New Chronology" would subtract about three and a half centuries from Egyptian dates as found in the textbooks. But this is overly cautious, and Rohl ignores a great body of evidence demanding a much more radical reduction in timescales. Take for example the Mesopotamian influence on early Egypt. This sounds remarkably like the culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt and Canaan recorded in the biblical story of Abraham. The two were never connected, of course, because the Abraham story is placed by conventional historians a thousand years after the founding of Egypt's First Dynasty. Yet it can be shown that everything, absolutely everything, about the Patriarch epoch, the epoch of Abraham, Joseph and Moses, indicates that it belongs in the Early Bronze Age. The Patriarch narratives are full of references to cultural and religious practices which point clearly in this direction. Among the most notable of these are: (a) Human sacrifice (mentioned in the Abraham story and the birth legend of Moses); (b) Religious use of ziggurats and pyramids (Jacob's "stairway to heaven", at the top of which was the "house of God".); (c) Mention of cosmic catastrophes (In Abraham, Joseph and Moses narratives); (d) References to Cosmic Pillar or Tower, and its destruction (In Abraham narrative). It is in fact with Abraham that Hebrew history first connects with Egypt - and the connection was established, it appears, right at the beginning of the histories of the two peoples. We might note, for example, the striking phallic associations of both Abraham and Menes, the first pharaoh. The name Abraham actually means "father of many", and the Patriarch initiates the custom of circumcision, whilst the Egyptian Menes (or Mena or Min) clearly takes his name from the phallic god Min, who was also associated with circumcision and was perhaps the most important deity in Egypt at the beginning of the First Dynasty. Similarly, Jewish legend recalls that Abraham entered Egypt during the reign of the first pharaoh, and emphasizes that, when he arrived, the Egyptians were virtual barbarians, and to the Patriarch went the credit of teaching them the rudiments of civilization. (See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews). All this dramatically calls to mind the evidence of archaeology, which has revealed a culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt just before the beginning of the First Dynasty, which David Rohl has so ably illustrated. If "Abraham" then, or the Abraham epoch, was contemporary with Menes, the first pharaoh, this has dramatic consequences for the whole of Egyptian and Hebrew history. Most immediately, it implies that the Patriarch Joseph, who brought the Hebrew tribes into Egypt, be identified with the Egyptian seer Imhotep, who laboured for pharaoh Djoser at the start of the Third Dynasty. Imhotep was the greatest and most celebrated of all Egyptian seers, who solved the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting Djoser's dream. In precisely the same way, biblical history tells us that, about two centuries after Abraham, a young Hebrew seer named Joseph became vizier to the pharaoh after solving the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting the king's dream. Removing a thousand years from Egyptian chronology therefore seems to have the effect of producing a precise match between the histories of the two neighbouring peoples. And the matches continue through subsequent centuries. These however are missed by Rohl because he remains too cautious.
________________________________________________
The ‘Dynastic Race’ By David Rohl
The birth of Egyptian civilisation have always been a bit of a mystery. How did it come about? And who were the first pharaohs? Were they indigenous North Africans or Sumerians coming from the east? That thorny question had been a subject of heated debate amongst academics over the last 100 years … that is until fairly recently when our tendency towards political correctness deemed that such difficult issues should be swept under the scholarly carpet. But the question of pharaonic origins still remains one of the great puzzles of Egyptology.
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
In a previous article I proposed that the discovery of hundreds of prehistoric rock carvings in the Eastern Desert between the Nile and the Red Sea was evidence of a foreign invasion which occurred just a couple of centuries before the rise of the 1st Dynasty in Egypt. These amazing drawings show fleets of ships carrying warriors, chieftains, 'dancing goddesses' and what appear to be the standards of Sumerian gods. Many of the boats are being dragged by their crews, suggesting transportation of the vessels across the desert from the Red Sea to the Nile. It's time, then, to go in search of these 'people from the east' in the tombs, temples, hieroglyphs and paintings of ancient Egypt.
An hour's drive north of Luxor, on the west bank of the Nile, there is a vast necropolis of 2000 predynastic graves. The place is called Nakada after the nearby village. Nakada turned out to be one of the most important excavation sites in Egypt because of the light it sheds upon the origins of the pharaonic state. Its excavator was the 'father of Egyptian archaeology', Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, the first British professor of Egyptology and founder of University College London's Egyptology Department where I myself studied and obtained my degree.
The cemetery at Nakada turned out to be the necropolis of the town of Nubt ('Gold Town') which grew up as a result of early gold-mining activities in the Wadi Hammamat region, just across the river in the Eastern Desert. 'Gold Town' was the Klondyke of predynastic Egypt.
What Petrie found in this vast cemetery were two groups of people which he designated Nakada I and Nakada II (and III). The people of Nakada I culture were the earliest occupants of the cemetery, whilst Nakada II superseded them and were therefore chronologically later. The burial goods and distinctive structures of the graves made Petrie realise, almost from the start, that he was dealing with two very different groups. The evidence seemed to indicate the arrival of newcomers in the Nile valley marked by the Nakada II graves which were soon shown, on stylistic grounds, to be contemporaneous with the rock art of the 'invaders' found in the Eastern Desert. Based on the evidence of the Nakada II graves, Petrie developed a theory of an incursion of easterners from Sumer who had taken over southern Egypt and subjugated the indigenous Nakada I population. These invaders, with their superior weapons and technology, eventually came to dominate the whole Nile valley and gave rise to what he called the 'Dynastic Race'.
Up until the 1950s Petrie's Dynastic Race theory received widespread support in Egyptological circles. Indeed, one of its proponents even began to refer to the predynastic invaders as a 'Super Race'. Petrie and his followers were very much of their age. They believed in the superiority of western civilisation over what we today call the Third World. They were colonialists with a colonial view of history. The idea of an intellectually superior race, invading Africa and civilising the region, was quite natural from their political perspectives. The Second World War, the Holocaust and the Arab/Israeli wars put an end to this way of thinking within ancient world studies.
In the politically correct world of late-twentieth-century scholarship the Dynastic Race theory has been quietly forgotten. As a result, it is very rare these days to find an Egyptologist prepared to give credence to the idea of foreign invaders at the dawn of Egyptian history. But should we reject the basic evidence because of the political views of past archaeologists? Nobody disputes that Petrie found what he found. So perhaps we should look again at the Dynastic Race theory – but this time without the rhetoric of pre-war colonialism. It is obvious that we cannot rewrite ancient history in the light of events in our own century. It is surely the historian's job to construct a coherent picture of the past based on the archaeological evidence – wherever it leads.
So, what does that evidence tell us about Egypt's origins?
Petrie found several new elements in the Nakada II graves. First, unlike the earlier Nakada I burials, many of the grave pits themselves were lined with mud bricks. This was the first time that bricks had been used in Egypt and archaeologists have determined that mud brick technology was a Sumerian invention.
Second, the pottery shapes and techniques of decoration were also new – again with clear precursors in Mesopotamia.
Third, the Nakada II warriors were buried with a new type of weapon known as the 'pear-shaped mace'. This was in contrast to the Nakada I people who used 'disk-shaped maces'. Interestingly, not only do the Eastern Desert rock-drawings show the chieftains holding the round-headed weapon but it also became the weapon par excellence of the later pharaohs who were regularly depicted smiting their enemies with the pear-shaped mace.
Fourth, lapis lazuli appears amongst the grave goods for the first time in Nakada II. This beautiful dark blue stone comes from Badakhshan in Afghanistan and was traded across land and by sea (via the Persian Gulf) to Sumer where it was greatly prized. Its sudden appearance in Egypt thus confirms contact with the Sumerians of southern Iraq.
Fifth, the complex niched-facade mudbrick architecture which develops out of Nakada III culture is identically paralleled in Sumer where it was used to decorate the temples of the gods. In Egypt it became a standard design feature of the early pharaohs' tombs. The design is so complex that it is hard to believe the niched-facade structure could have been independently invented in the two regions. All authorities accept that such architecture originated in Sumer and was 'exported' to Egypt.
These are just some of the technologies and artefacts which clearly point to contact between Mesopotamian and Egypt. However, this does not prove that there was a military conquest (rather than simple trade) or if the Sumerian settlers in the Nile valley went on to become the first pharaohs. Here there are more tantalising clues.
A magnificent ivory knife handle was discovered near Nakada, at the turn of the century, which shows a Sumerian hero figure controlling two great lions on one side and a battle on the other between long-haired warriors (one of whom carries a pear-shaped mace) and short-haired opponents who are getting the worst of the conflict. The long-haired victors are associated with high-prowed boats, just like the ones found in the desert rock art, whilst the short-haired losers are represented by sickle-shaped boats made of papyrus and associated with the River Nile. The Gebel el-Arak predynastic knife (now in the Louvre) is not only an amazing 5000-year-old artefact but it appears to depict Sumerian invaders with their high-prowed ships in the very act of conquering the Nile valley.
The evidence for Mesopotamians in Egypt is even more compelling at the site of Butu (ancient Pe-Dep) in the western delta. There, German archaeologists have recently unearthed coloured clay cones which, if their counterparts in Sumer are anything to go by, were used to decorate buildings. This decorative cone technique is so striking that it is hard to imagine it being invented independently in Egypt after it had come into use in Mesopotamia.
Did this élite Sumerian clan eventually come to dominate the whole of Egypt and establish the first pharaonic dynasty? An important clue is found in the fact that the later nobility of Egypt called themselves by a special name. They were known as the 'Pat' or the iry-Pat ('belonging to the Pat') – a term which implied membership of a special clan or blood-line. This term was reserved for members of the royal family, courtiers and high officials. Interestingly, a text from the Middle Kingdom (1000 years after the unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty) refers to a man who reached high office 'in spite of the fact that he was not iry-Pat', suggesting that the ruling class were expected to have been directly descended from an ancestral élite. These great founding ancestors were also known by another title. The later hieroglyphic texts refer to the 'Followers of Horus' who first established kingship in the Nile valley. They are shown in predynastic and early dynastic carvings carrying their standards into battle in support of kings who bore the title of 'Horus' as part of their names. So, was the first Horus-king a real person who later became deified. Could there have been an original human Horus and, if so, was he African or Mesopotamian?
To answer these questions we need to return to the stories in the book of Genesis and Holy Koran. In my book Legend – The Genesis of Civilisation I identified the location of the traditional site of the Garden of Eden in western Iran, the mountain of Noah's Ark in Kurdestan, and the Tower of Babel in southern Iraq. I argued that the Old Testament legends surrounding Noah and the Flood and then King Nimrod were also to be found in the Sumerian literary tradition. It appears that the Genesis narrative may have been based on actual historical events from primeval times.
-
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
-
The names Isis and Osiris are Greek forms of Egyptian Iset and Asar. The latter is written with the hieroglyphs of a throne and an eye. Amazingly, a Sumerian god local to Eridu (where I have placed the Tower of Babel) is also called Asar and his name is written in Sumerian with the symbol for a throne. It appears that the Egyptian god of vegetation and rebirth may originally have come from southern Iraq, having been introduced to the Nile valley (along with his consort) by Sumerian worshippers.
-
The tombs in the Valley of the Kings are decorated with scenes from the Amduat ('That which is in the Underworld'). The dead king's spirit is seen being transported from his tomb in the western necropolis across the great underworld ocean of the abyss towards the eastern horizon. His craft is a high-prowed boat just like the ships found in the predynastic rock art. The dead pharaoh is accompanied by the primeval gods, with Re-Atum as his protector. Together, they journey through seven gates before reaching the shore of the underworld desert where the crew is depicted dragging the boat of Re-Atum towards the dawn horizon. There the spirit of the king is reborn as the rising sun over the Isle of Flame. This place is otherwise known as the primeval mound of creation surrounded by the Waters of Nun. It was here that the original primeval temple was constructed by the gods. The island is described as a sandy circular mound surrounded by reeds growing in a freshwater marsh. The temple shrine lies at the centre of the island on a low mound. All later Egyptian temples are architecturally designed to recreate this setting. To enter the temple you pass between two great artificial desert mountains (the pylon gateway) and cross an expansive desert (the open-air perystyle court. You then enter the reed marsh of the Waters of Nun (the hypostyle hall with its giant reed and papyrus columns) surrounding the Island of Nun, before reaching the sacred shrine (the holy of holies) representing the primeval Temple of Nun. All this time you have been gradually ascending as the floor of the temple rises up, step by step. This represents the mound of creation on which the primeval shrine rests.
Once we realise that the Egyptian primeval age or 'First Time' was set not in the Nile valley but rather in Sumer, we can finally identify this island and its primeval mound with a real physical place. The Sumerian texts tell us that the first city on earth came into being as the great ancestors arrived on a small sandy island, surrounded by reeds in the freshwater swamps of southern Iraq. There, on that island, the city of Eridu was founded with the building of a small reed shrine on top of a sandy mound. Over the centuries the shrine grew into a great temple, the final form of which was to become the infamous 'Tower of Babel' of Genesis. Eridu's Sumerian name was Nun.ki – the 'Mighty Place'. The Egyptians referred to the swamp surrounding their primeval island of creation as the 'Waters of Nun'. Thus the primeval temple of Egyptian mythology was one and the same as the legendary Tower of Babel.
read this once, don't feel like going through it again, no opinion as of yet. Rohl has credibility problems in his other biblical linking arguments
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
While I don't agree with everything Rohl says, I believe he may have a point with the traditional chronology being off. I think he relies a little too much on the Bible, but I think there is some truth in that much of the roots in Biblical myth are based on Sumerian. I also believe that some of the Hebrews or at least some of their forebears had their origins in Iran of around the Armenian region. These were the non-black Middle Easterners who adopted Semtic language and culture from the original black Semites.....
(from different post on Sumerians: )
^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants....
The Sumerians were NOT considered a Hamitic people in the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Kushi, from Kush, doesn't mean the color black. It's used to refer to black people as an ethnic taxon. One cannot juxtapose black against Semitic. Neither color nor ethnicity can be apposed to language.
Hham and Shem were both black in the Hebrew mindset.
quote: Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.
(PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a)
Now neither the internal search engine nor GOOGLE hits any of the many times I posted this quote from the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer as to Shem being black and beautiful and Hham black as the raven.
Why is that? Somebody's afraid of something!
The Hebrews' Shem doesn't correspond to the linguists Semites anymore than their Kush does to Cushitic. Elam is the firstborn son of Shem and Elamites didn't speak Semitic. K*na`an is a son of Hham and Canaanites did speak Hebrew. The fact is that the Israelites called the Hebrew language "the language of Canaan."
Continental Africa houses the majority of individual Semitic languages and those speakers there in the Horn are all BLACK N BEAUTIFUL with their Semitic selves.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Kalonji, maybe you should have ausar remove the lioness' posts 0_0
Posted by ANGUISH_OF_BEANS_AND_DODO (Member # 6729) on :
boom
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Damn that bytch knows how to spam a thread!
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
''Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.
(PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a)'' ========
This was a view popularised in the medieval ages that the three son's of Noah were the ancestors of different races (Japheth - white european, Ham - black african etc).
It has no historical or scientific basis. In fact on the contary Genesis is very clear the descendants of Noah were all one race.
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
''There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage'' ========
All false.
Nowhere does the Bible say Ham was black. This is a fantasy of Afrocentrics, when the truth is blacks are not in the Bible and have nothing to do with it. The authors of Genesis were solely confined to Mesopotamia and had no knowledge or communication with black sub-saharan africans.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Damn stop derailing the thread already, you can and have discussed this subject on the "Angel of the Lord" thread.
Some folks here have no kind of dignity...seriously. Lioness just spammed the hell out of this thread..
Rahotep has caught Ghost on Kalonji's Response and request..
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^This is why Euroclowns are rarely given the intellectual ass beating that they deserve. We have ES contributers and apparently even moderators creating the perfect circumstances for them to keep making these idiotic claims, without any serious attempt to hold them accountable for their claims.
Ausar, why not create a new thread, or bumb one of the older threads and continue there?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Kalonji, maybe you should have ausar remove the lioness' posts 0_0
maybe you should have ausar remove zarahan's threads -all the ones with the huge replies each three times longer than mine. Or will people continue living in complete hypocrisy and double standards? -lioness shoved aside so they can do the tango with dee white man.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ The point is Zarahan spams her own threads. Kalonji asked specifically for people to not post so Rahotep can say focused and you Spammed his thread on purpose due to your tactics to keep Egypt from Africa. Now you want to complain about double standards, please stop pretending like you did not spam this thread on purpose, just mad because Kalonji embarassed your ass on the E.S Youtube Page where we still await your response...
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: [QB] ^^^^ The point is Zarahan spams her own threads.
^^^^this is a white wash. He has spammed other people's threads as well too many times to count. It's easily proven. I gave him the spam award in 2009.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
the difference is he actually reads his you dont. yours is spam precisely because it just done for effect nothing more. like when you spammed nizkor without reading it first. lol
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: ^^^^ The point is Zarahan spams her own threads. Kalonji asked specifically for people to not post so Rahotep can say focused
actually, this "debate" with the "rah" guy is long over. the guy choose not to reply to the specific questions. no need to prove your point anymore kalonjiboy.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: [QB] the difference is he actually reads his you dont.
^^^^ psychic powers
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: actually, this "debate" with the "rah" guy is long over. the guy choose not to reply to the specific questions. no need to prove your point anymore kalonjiboy.
Yes, I would have to agree, considering Rahotep has taken so long to reply(Like Lioness on the Youtube Thread), I think its safe to conclude Winston has fled in fear..LOOOL....
his majesty was in their center, with Amon as the protection of his members, the valor of his limbs. Then his majesty prevailed against them at the head of his army, and when they saw his majesty prevailing against them they fled headlong to Megiddo in fear, abandoning their horses and their chariots of gold and silver. The people hauled them up, pulling them by their clothing, into this city; the people of this city having closed it against them and lowered clothing to pull them up into this city.
when the wretched foe of Kadesh and the wretched foe of this city were hauled up in haste to bring them into this city. The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, their arms were powerless, his serpent diadem was victorious among them.-Battle of Meggido
Rah has joined Lioness in the Runaway Bride Club...LOL
Sorry, Kalonji but I doubt Runaway Bride Rah will be addressing your points anyway..
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Da Runaway Ho Steps can run but he can't hide.
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Up
For that coward ''Rahotep'', since I see you're just going to keep insinuating that the ancients Egyptians were the same as the moderns. If you can yap about it elsewhere, why not here?
Whats taking you so long, son?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
And where is the proof that modern Egyptians DO NOT have tropical limb proportions?
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Not this again. My thoughts being that since Raxter's new study found that region had a significant effect on limb proportions in ancient Egyptians, it must have had a stronger effect on the modern population! But we'll have to wait for the full study to be released.
Also, Zakrzewski (2005) found continuity up to the New Kingdom, but discontinuity afterwards.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Kalonji:
^Up
For that coward ''Rahotep'', since I see you're just going to keep insinuating that the ancients Egyptians were the same as the moderns. If you can yap about it elsewhere, why not here?
Whats taking you so long, son?
^lmao... looks like "the ho" keeps running...
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
The ho ran off before, and she's doing it again!
Boy oh boy, ''Rahotep'', what would your youtube audience think about your blatant cowardice?
Why is there such a gap between the expert that you're perpetrating yourself to be in your YT videos, yet you're running away from questions that simply involve substantiation of the claims you have made earlier?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Kalonji you should def. make a video Challenge to Rahotep. I would love to begin to expose his contradictions, fallacies, and spin tactics to his Youtube audience.
Expose him for what he is, a fraud!!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, not only is he a fraud and coward, he is obviously suffering from delusion. Notice how whenever any of his notions is soundly debunked and refuted by evidence, he ignores it.
For example, he keeps bringing up the fallacy of a "North" and "Sub-Saharan" dichotomy of African populations. My last post above cites two major studies showing that the Sahara desert did not always exist and that there was both population and cultural continuity between peoples and cultures south of today's Sahara and those north of it in ancient times.
In another thread, he brings up how Tut's skull does not resemble black Africans when it obviously does...
quote:Originally posted by DaHotip101: Lest you think I'm hiding this... Tut's head was unusually long, but his facial features were more in line with the caucasoid...
Lest we think you're a complete and utter moron... There is nothing "unusual" about Tut's elongated skull. This is a trait known as hyper-dolicocephaly and is in fact quite common among BLACK Africans including those in Sub-Saharan regions.
As far as his facial features are concerned here is what one expert said of Tut's skull who helped with the National Geographic reconstruction.
Dr Susan Anton: I actually didn't choose the term "North African Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that worked on separate reconstructions)...
A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins..
Ausar tells her about the importance of considering African phenotypic diversity since many anthropologists have already confirmed about the tremendous diversity of facial features in Sub-Sahara alone and that these traits include hyper-dolicocephaly and alveolar prognathism which is Tut's and the other 18th dynasty's "buck-teeth".
To which Dr. Anton answered: Yes this is true and this is precisely why I felt (although I did not know where the individual was from) that this was an individual of African ancestry, and why I so stated.
Alveolar prognathism was taken into account (at least by me, I can't speak for the other groups) and is another part of the reason for my estimation of African ancestry in this individual. You should recall that all the other groups that worked on this individual knew that this was Tut's skull. We did not know either who this was particularly or if it was a forensic case or an archaeological case (I worked from the CT reconstruction of the skull from which it is impossible to infer such.
^ Yet he gives no response.
One of the signs of delusion is to ignore reality or aspects thereof i.e. evidence.
I agree with Jari, Kalonji you should make counter-attack youtube videos to debunk him there as well.
It's obvious we are dealing with another Euronut not interested in truth but in his ethnocentric lies.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:I see you're just going to keep insinuating that the ancients Egyptians were the same as the moderns.
In case Rahotep decides to show up:
Zakrzewski, S. R. (2005) Morphological Variation in Egyptian Crania. In Cooke, A. & Simpson, F. (eds.) Current Research in Egyptology II. Oxford: Archeopress, BAR International Series 1380: 75-80.
This is like her third study wherein her results suggest that late Egyptians are distinct. Some people just don't want to get it Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Jari and DJ Rahotep is too small a fish to fry, to make a vid out of him. I gain nothing from dealing with scientifically illiterate insects other than vid responses with even more scientifically illiterate non-sense. I might make a vid that will incorporate his phuckups within a general focus of how Eurocentrics tend to operate, we'll see.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I might make a vid that will incorporate his phuckups within a general focus of how Eurocentrics tend to operate, we'll see.
That will do just fine.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I might make a vid that will incorporate his phuckups within a general focus of how Eurocentrics tend to operate, we'll see.
That will do just fine.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Oh well. So it is written...
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
'African Origins' included north Africans, i.e. modern Egyptians. The 'conundrum' Dr Susan Anton faced was evidently between Europe and North Africa, not between north and sub-saharan Africa. Make no mistake. There is no false dichotomy between northern and sub-saharan populations. What there is is a vast, uninhabitable desert, covering 9,400,000 square kilomers, which poses a greater barrier to human movement than the waters of the Med. These waters were always busy with maritime traffic. If you deny this fact you are an idiot.
The fact remains that Anton correctly identified Tut's skull as that of a North African, not a sub-saharan, and not knowing the age of the skull she must have associated it to the present population of North Africa. This fact alone speaks for ethnic continuity in Egypt. No one, to my knowledge has ever mistaken an Egyptian pharaoh's skull for that one of these primitives of the Kenyan plains (and certainly never for a tropical west African negro.)
Dr Zahi Hawass knows more than most about Tutankhamun, and about ancent Egypt in general. Let us remind ourselves what he had to say on the matter: "Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it."
Gee wizz, people, the man says Tutankhamun wasn't black! But what does he know? Quite a bit:
1987 PH.D - Egyptology University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, USA
1983 M.A - Egyptology & Syro-Palestinian Archaeology University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, USA
'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past' (meaning ancient Egypt).
Oooooh!
Has he ever eaten these words?
And was Dr C. Loring Brace ever heard to retract the following opinion: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'.
(I'm aware that this statement contradicts the dynastic race theory, which nonetheless has things going for it, but in any case the outcome is that modern Egyptians are fundamentally the same as those of ancient Egypt during its golden age.)
If the ancient Egyptians had tropical proportions, it is probably because the ancient Sahara was tropical. I would bet that there is no great difference between the limb proportions of ancient and modern Egyptians, especially Coptic Christian ones.
The predynastic Egyptian sites do not look 'awfully African', as round thatched huts were the primitive dwelling of choice all over the world. The statues of penis-clutching giants, prefiguring Min, seem to be a local pecculiarity. However there are similarities to the Roman Priapus, the Norse Frey or Freyr, the Celtic Cernunnos, the Cerne Abbas giant in Britain, the Indian phallic Shiva etc. etc.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
Hawass also had this to say about the ancient Egyptians:
quote:"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa," he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:I'm aware that this statement contradicts the dynastic race theory
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:No one, to my knowledge has ever mistaken an Egyptian pharaoh's skull for that one of these primitives of the Kenyan plains (and certainly never for a tropical west African negro.)
Is there a reason, why you ramble on and on about West Africans and Kenyans, and why you fail talk about Ancient Sudani's? Its a good thing you said ''to my knowledge'' since Egyptian material has compared favorably to both West African and Kenyan cranial series. For example 50+% of the Badarian craniums classed into Keita's series from Equatorial Africa, and Michael Crichton found Naqada crania to resemble that of the Teita, which was duplicated numerous times by other authors.
quote:'African Origins' included north Africans, i.e. modern Egyptians.
You mean Lovell? Give me a quote on this
quote:Let us remind ourselves what he had to say on the matter: "Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it."
Irrelevant. What one person calls black, another doesn't. Hawass has said elsewhere that the Fellahin represent what the AE would have looked like. Do you know the difference between the Fellahin and the average modern Egyptian?
quote:'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past' (meaning ancient Egypt).
Does Keita's work support the contention that Ancient Egypt is a carbon copy of modern Egypt, yes or no. This is where your disingenuity comes into play, again!!!
quote:And was Dr C. Loring Brace ever heard to retract the following opinion: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'.
So, let's get into this for a moment, and test how much of this is true. What are examples of Pleistocene Egyptian cranial series?
quote:If the ancient Egyptians had tropical proportions, it is probably because the ancient Sahara was tropical. I would bet that there is no great difference between the limb proportions of ancient and modern Egyptians, especially Coptic Christian ones.
I don't care about what you ''bet''. I want to see hard data. Modern Egyptians can't have tropical limb proportions, since New Kingdom samples are already departing from the extreme tropical indices we see in Predynastic times, and some overlap with the upper extremities of Europeans. What is the reason for this Rahotep, of not foreign migration?
quote:The predynastic Egyptian sites do not look 'awfully African', as round thatched huts were the primitive dwelling of choice all over the world.
I'm not going down that road, as I've already told you countless times. This thread is about cranial material, specifically, that of the Naqadans. Where is your evidence that Naqada II (elite) folks were significantly different in their skeletons from Naqada I folks?
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:'African Origins' included north Africans, i.e. modern Egyptians. The 'conundrum' Dr Susan Anton faced was evidently between Europe and North Africa, not between north and sub-saharan Africa. Make no mistake. There is no false dichotomy between northern and sub-saharan populations. What there is is a vast, uninhabitable desert, covering 9,400,000 square kilomers, which poses a greater barrier to human movement than the waters of the Med.
There was no biological relationship with the ancient Egyptians and Europeans. And even if the Sahara now acts as a barrier, thousands of years ago there was no desert at all! Which is when sub-Saharan Africa influenced Egypt the most:
"The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed."
Not to mention that the Egyptians had the greatest morphological resemblance to southern Africans. Narrow noses aren't influenced by gene flow, which is why Susan Anton said this:
"there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his **African** origins"
quote:The fact remains that Anton correctly identified Tut's skull as that of a North African, not a sub-saharan, and not knowing the age of the skull she must have associated it to the present population of North Africa. This fact alone speaks for ethnic continuity in Egypt. No one, to my knowledge has ever mistaken an Egyptian pharaoh's skull for that one of these primitives of the Kenyan plains (and certainly never for a tropical west African negro.)
What does a north African mean to you?
And obviously YOU are an idiot if you are taking Susan Anton's statement to mean continuity in Egypt. I just posted this retard:
Zakrzewski, S. R. (2005) Morphological Variation in Egyptian Crania. In Cooke, A. & Simpson, F. (eds.) Current Research in Egyptology II. Oxford: Archeopress, BAR International Series 1380: 75-80.
"Non-metric traits have been considered as reasonable proxies for genetics when genetic data is unavailable. Greater similarity has been found between Dynastic samples at Assyut and Gebelein than between either Dynastic group and a predynastic sample from Gebelein, suggesting some degree of genetic change through time. This work supports the distinction of the Archaic group from the preceeding predynastic samples described in this paper. Genetic continuity has been described between Badari, Naqada and Hierakonopolis samples, and between Archaic and OK populations but with genetic discontinuity from the New Kingdom onwards. This study of epigenetic traits supports the genetic separation of the late group from the early cranial series, as shown in figure four.
quote:Dr Zahi Hawass knows more than most about Tutankhamun, and about ancent Egypt in general. Let us remind ourselves what he had to say on the matter: "Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it."
Gee wizz, people, the man says Tutankhamun wasn't black! But what does he know? Quite a bit:
1987 PH.D - Egyptology University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, USA
1983 M.A - Egyptology & Syro-Palestinian Archaeology University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, USA
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any credentials in bio-anthropology up there
quote:What does your man Dr. S.O.Y. Keita say?
'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past' (meaning ancient Egypt).
HAHA! I love how Euro-centrists misinterpret this quote. ALL he is saying is that the range of features in modern Egypt has always been present. NOBODY on this forum denies that. However, in the past the majority of the population would have been dark skinned, Keita notes this as well:
"No one can say exactly what colour they were, but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country."--S.O.Y. Keita- Personal Correspondence with a member here at ES:
"They would have been dark based on ecological principles"--Keita
Subsequently, we see a demographic change in the Nile Valley- i.e., a rise of light skin and decrease in the more southern phenotype.
quote:And was Dr C. Loring Brace ever heard to retract the following opinion: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'.
(I'm aware that this statement contradicts the dynastic race theory, which nonetheless has things going for it, but in any case the outcome is that modern Egyptians are fundamentally the same as those of ancient Egypt during its golden age.)
And exactly how many times must I explain to you that Brace's recent paper clearly contradicts his older one? I mean really Rahotep, each time I explained to you that Brace's older paper has been refuted by his recent one you just keep on keeping on being a dumbass and repeat the same bullshit later on.
quote:If the ancient Egyptians had tropical proportions, it is probably because the ancient Sahara was tropical. I would bet that there is no great difference between the limb proportions of ancient and modern Egyptians, especially Coptic Christian ones.
No, it's because Egypt was populated by sub-Saharan Africans. And the modern Egyptians definitely do not have tropical limb proportions, unless in the southern part of the country, because Raxter et al. finds that the region of Egypt significantly effected their body proportions.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
CB, Imma let you handle him since al these arguments are simply too much for him to respond to. Please try to stick to the topic of Naqadan and dynastic Ancient Egyptian material, and how there is a clear trend from the ''Nubian'' toward the ''North African'' pattern that we now see in modern Egypt. Don't allow yourself to get sidetracked into Mesopotamian or other foreign cultural material in Ancient Egypt. I'll watch from the sideline as the discussion ensues.
Ausar, please see to it that other posters stay out of this, just delete their posts if you have to.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Oh, you're Kalonji lol. I thought you were DJehuti. Since it's your thread I can still delete my post
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:No one, to my knowledge has ever mistaken an Egyptian pharaoh's skull for that one of these primitives of the Kenyan plains (and certainly never for a tropical west African negro.)
Is there a reason, why you ramble on and on about West Africans and Kenyans, and why you fail talk about Ancient Sudani's? Its a good thing you said ''to my knowledge'' since Egyptian material has compared favorably to both West African and Kenyan cranial series. For example 50+% of the Badarian craniums classed into Keita's series from Equatorial Africa, and Michael Crichton found Naqada crania to resemble that of the Teita, which was duplicated numerous times by other authors.
quote:'African Origins' included north Africans, i.e. modern Egyptians.
You mean Lovell? Give me a quote on this
quote:Let us remind ourselves what he had to say on the matter: "Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it."
Irrelevant. What one person calls black, another doesn't. Hawass has said elsewhere that the Fellahin represent what the AE would have looked like. Do you know the difference between the Fellahin and the average modern Egyptian?
quote:'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past' (meaning ancient Egypt).
Does Keita's work support the contention that Ancient Egypt is a carbon copy of modern Egypt, yes or no. This is where your disingenuity comes into play, again!!!
quote:And was Dr C. Loring Brace ever heard to retract the following opinion: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'.
So, let's get into this for a moment, and test how much of this is true. What are examples of Pleistocene Egyptian cranial series?
quote:If the ancient Egyptians had tropical proportions, it is probably because the ancient Sahara was tropical. I would bet that there is no great difference between the limb proportions of ancient and modern Egyptians, especially Coptic Christian ones.
I don't care about what you ''bet''. I want to see hard data. Modern Egyptians can't have tropical limb proportions, since New Kingdom samples are already departing from the extreme tropical indices we see in Predynastic times, and some overlap with the upper extremities of Europeans. What is the reason for this Rahotep, of not foreign migration?
quote:The predynastic Egyptian sites do not look 'awfully African', as round thatched huts were the primitive dwelling of choice all over the world.
I'm not going down that road, as I've already told you countless times. This thread is about cranial material, specifically, that of the Naqadans. Where is your evidence that Naqada II (elite) folks were significantly different in their skeletons from Naqada I folks?
If you can only bang on about predynastic Egyptian specimens exhibiting more negroid traits, and not dynastic Egyptians, then you are lending weight to Dynastic Race Theory, are you not?
Do you now say that north Africa is not in Africa, then, if north African origins are not African Origins?
I'm aware that the definition of 'black' is different in different countries and cultures. I take the Egyptians by their own definition, and suspect I would go along with Hawass' definition also. I suspect this Fellah is quite representative of the average ancient Egyptian, and it is not what I call black...
Fellahin are the countrymen of Egypt and the Levant. It is an arabic word for farm worker which came to be applied to the indigenous, non Arab peasants of these regions. Some Copts are also Fellahin. Copts are not ethically distinct from other Egyptians despite their 1400 odd years of religious isolation. I don't say Egypt has an identical population now as in the past but the core population is unchanged, and there was certainly no mass replacement or breeding- out of the original people. Egyptians are fundamentally as they were. Whether they descend primarily from proto-caucasian Africans or from caucasian back-migrants is a matter about which I have not yet reached a firm conclusion. The evidence is inconclusive and studies contradict.
If ancient Egyptians lost their tropical proportions while the pharaohs still reigned then who's this did not result from climate change rather than population change? At the start of the Old Kingdom, Egypt had a tropical climate. By the Middle Kingdom it was becoming arid, as it remains. Lions, hippos and possibly ostriches inhabited Egypt in dynastic times but no-longer do.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Oh, you're Kalonji lol. I thought you were DJehuti. Since it's your thread I can still delete my post
I don't mind, as long as its a single person who debates him, who sees to it that he won't sneak out of responding to each point that was made.
It's not as if changing opponants will change the outcome for Rahotep, as we're all reading the same scientific literature, and so there is only one outcome for him, regardless of who debates him, you or me.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: Hawass also had this to say about the ancient Egyptians:
quote:"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa," he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.
Indeed. Egyptians are Africans, but not in the Afrocentric sense of the word, which is interchangeable with 'black' or an euphemism for 'negro'. Some Egyptians identify as Arabs but in most cases it is a cultural rather than an ethnic identity, stemming mostly from the arab-centric nature of Islam. Muslim are indistinguishable from their Coptic Christian compatriots, who never identify as Arabs. It would be more accurate to call them Muslim Copts rather than Arabs (though they wouldn't necessarily appreciate that).
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
@ Kalonji, the Term "Fellahin" simply means Farmers(Fellah for Singular). There are Fellahin in Lower Egypt who look no different than the Arab/Turkish Delata Egyptians. Also there are Darker Fellahin as well like those in Upper Egypt.
The Term Fellahin is probably more popularly associated with Upper Egypt due to a Book by Winfried Blackman about the Upper Egyptian Fellahin being closer to the Ancient Egyptian Customs..
They all have Caucasoid facial features, they look nothing like the Nigerian jungle Negroes.
If we were to slightly depigment the guy with those goats, he could pass as a European.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Im aware of the fact that Fellahin simply means farmer. The point is that the farmers of Egypt are significantly darker than the nonfarmers of modern Egypt.
That topic can be discussed elsewhere, CB please continue the debate.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
'Dark skinned Nubians inhabit the narrow valley south of Aswan. Although modern studies have been unable to establish the ancestry of the Nubian people or trace changes in the race through history, they carry predominantly Caucasian genes and appear unrelated to other Africans.'
If this is true then the negroid-types depicted on Egyptian monuments as captives or enemies, who do appear to be related to other Africans, clearly must be people other than those now termed Nubians, and must come from regions much further south than Aswan, or even than Meroe.
The ethnic Nubians of today are not members of any pan-African race either, it appears, although in some cases they appear to have absorbed substantial negroid genes compard to Egyptians.
The following is also quoted on Matilda's Anthropology blog:
'C. Fox, 1997:
Abstract:
The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26·7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa I (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68·7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.
It is claimed that modern Nubians have about 45% maternal Eurasian ancestry. Mummies reveal as much as 60% Eurasian ancestry. Therefore finding affinities between Nubians and Egyptians does not bracket Egyptians with black Africans. What we have here are hamitic peoples with much ancestry outside of Africa.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^ Right, my bad K, I was only trying to clear up the confusion on the Fellahin. They get Darker than what I posted but as you said that is another subject, no more off topics...
CB the ball is back in your court.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
These findings, by the way, make sense of why pre-medieval Nubians group with Egyptians and Greeks and other Mediterraneans, but not with black African populations, which was puzzling me before...
What do you know, Caucasiandom get to claim the Nubian pyramdis as well as the Egyptian ones!
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
...
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:An interesting claim about Nubians:
'Dark skinned Nubians inhabit the narrow valley south of Aswan. Although modern studies have been unable to establish the ancestry of the Nubian people or trace changes in the race through history, they carry predominantly Caucasian genes and appear unrelated to other Africans.'
If this is true then the negroid-types depicted on Egyptian monuments as captives or enemies, who do appear to be related to other Africans, clearly must be people other than those now termed Nubians, and must come from regions much further south than Aswan, or even than Meroe.
The ethnic Nubians of today are not members of any pan-African race either, it appears, although in some cases they appear to have absorbed substantial negroid genes compard to Egyptians.
Stop citing from pseudo websites. There is no such thing as "Caucasoid" genes because "Caucasoid" describes a racial category that is based strongly on phenotype and haplogroups do not relate to phenotype but GENOTYPE. Secondly, any foreign admixture in modern day Nubians is from recent times with Arabs (see Hassan et al.) as the predominant Eurasian haplogroup they carry is J1, which is recent.
quote:The ethnic Nubians of today are not members of any pan-African race either, it appears, although in some cases they appear to have absorbed substantial negroid genes compard to Egyptians.
What are you talking about? Ascribing a phenotypic racial category to haplogroups is absurd for the aforementioned reasons.
quote:The following is also quoted on Matilda's Anthropology blog:
'C. Fox, 1997:
Abstract:
You sure like to reference outdated studies, eh? As stated here many times, Fox et al. 1997 only used the HpaI 3592 marker which does not test for L3 markers. A more detailed study would be Frigi et al. 2010.
Also, Fox et al's statement that Nubians did not evolve in situ was contradicted time after time, most recently here:
quote:These findings, by the way, make sense of why pre-medieval Nubians group with Egyptians and Greeks and other Mediterraneans, but not with black African populations, which was puzzling me before...
Yes, you were puzzled by the chart. Which is why I explained to you time after time that it is pooled. Not only that, but the samples at the bottom are an oddity that is lost when the chart takes a 3d arrangement. Here is what Kemp has to say about it:
"Indeed, the bottom two African groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram. If a three dimensional display were to be adopted this oddity would be lost."
The reason for this being that the bottom groups are substantially different from the group they are placed with, as seen by how far separated they are by the twig, which is why Kemp says that it would be more reasonable if they were placed at the top.
quote:What do you know, Caucasiandom get to claim the Nubian pyramdis as well as the Egyptian ones!
Lol... whatever keeps you from committing suicide haha
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: Hawass also had this to say about the ancient Egyptians:
quote:"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa," he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.
Indeed. Egyptians are Africans, but not in the Afrocentric sense of the word, which is interchangeable with 'black' or an euphemism for 'negro'. Some Egyptians identify as Arabs but in most cases it is a cultural rather than an ethnic identity, stemming mostly from the arab-centric nature of Islam. Muslim are indistinguishable from their Coptic Christian compatriots, who never identify as Arabs. It would be more accurate to call them Muslim Copts rather than Arabs (though they wouldn't necessarily appreciate that).
We know they were Africans because they lived in Africa. But by his statement he seems to be saying that the original Egyptian empire builders were from some other place outside of Africa. If they weren't originally African, then who were they? Maybe I could e-mail him for the answer?lol
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:We know they were Africans because they lived in Africa. But by his statement he seems to be saying that the original Egyptian empire builders were from some other place outside of Africa. If they weren't originally African, then who were they? Maybe I could e-mail him for the answer?lol
I highly doubt that. Probably a mistake on his part imo... they of course had bio-cultural origins on the African continent
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: These findings, by the way, make sense of why pre-medieval Nubians group with Egyptians and Greeks and other Mediterraneans, but not with black African populations, which was puzzling me before...
What do you know, Caucasiandom get to claim the Nubian pyramdis as well as the Egyptian ones!
Besides the already-mentioned point about pooling (you can view the unpooled chart here), the reason Northeast Africans seem more closely related to "Caucasoids" on that chart could be because non-Africans in general are derivative of Northeast Africans, not because Northeast Africans are not tropically adapted. The point is that ancient Egyptians are closer to dark-skinned Northeast Africans than to the lighter-skinned groups you want to associate them with.
Furthermore, it shouldn't be surprising if modern Egyptians show some continuity with ancient Egyptians on a dendrogram---of course they should, since despite their mixed heritage they still have some ancient Egyptian ancestry. That does not mean they are pure ancient Egyptians, only that they retain just enough ancient characteristics to be positioned close to earlier Egyptians on a dendrogram. Unfortunately a dendrogram is not the best means of determining exactly how similar two populations are to each other, only whether they have any shared evolutionary heritage; a cluster graph would be better for the former purpose.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Secondly, any foreign admixture in modern day Nubians is from recent times with Arabs (see Hassan et al.) as the predominant Eurasian haplogroup they carry is J1, which is recent.
Except that Nubians have substantial maternal Eurasian ancestry. When was the Sudan ever invaded by an army of Arab women?
I was reading recently, I forget where, that the Beja have a legend that their ancestors come down from the north. It fits...
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Which mtDNA lineages of non-African origin reach substantial frequencies in Nubians?
And no, the Beja coming from the north doesn't fit at all. You are so obsessed with Africans that you will claim many populations Hamitic. Pathetic.
Now still waiting for you to address everything....
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Actually, the most recent study found 72.5% of Sudanese haplotypes to belong to sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
It's not clear what period you're referring to. Obviously sub-saharan input has increased since ancient times. It was a case of noticing the absence of a sub-saharan mtDNA marker.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Actually, the most recent study found 72.5% of Sudanese haplotypes to belong to sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups.
Yep, and that does NOT include the 5% of M1a.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Rahotep
quote:Obviously sub-saharan input has increased since ancient times. It was a case of noticing the absence of a sub-saharan mtDNA marker.
Makes no fukin sense so called Sub Saharan genetic material was present in substantial numbers in countries North of the Med since the most ancient of times..need I say it again Benin Hbs??? backed up by forensic evidence of Angel's etal in Greek and Anatolian first farmers tropical adaptation..sorry Kalonji. I am bowing out..
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: It's not clear what period you're referring to. Obviously sub-saharan input has increased since ancient times. It was a case of noticing the absence of a sub-saharan mtDNA marker.
You submitted this image :
Have you seen the full chapter from this book including all its images? It specifically deals with the peopling of Ancient Egypt. It deals a scholarly deathblow/beatdown to Eurocentrics such as your self.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:It's not clear what period you're referring to. Obviously sub-saharan input has increased since ancient times. It was a case of noticing the absence of a sub-saharan mtDNA marker.
The study you referenced from 1997 used a method that could not detect L3 lineages as the recent study did. Sub-Saharan L3 lineages would have been introduced ~20,000 b.p (Frigi et al.) with west African influence being about 15,000 b.p. in north Africa. So these sub-Saharan lineages are very ancient. As for M1, according to Stevanovitch et al. in Egypt this would mark an ancestral East African population to the Egyptians. Only a lesser portion of the Sudanese mtDNA gene pool is Eurasian, being predominately sub-Saharan in origin. Poof, out goes Caucasoid Nubians.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Butting in here, so we can get back to Ancient Egyptian material, and how Modern Egyptians diverged from them.
In an exchange with K.Godde, she said the following about Nubian material:
quote:Gene flow wasn't necessarily > the main cause of evolution, but gene flow did have to occur > to some extent (not necessarily a large portion). Have > you read Relethford and Blangero's work on gene flow and > estimations of it using craniometric and anthropometric > data? I applied his model to nonmetric data and was > unable to find large levels of gene flow in Nubians, despite > the high level of variation that I estimated using Fst.
In other words, the high levels of variation CAN'T be explained by geneflow. Go figure, what an unlearned lunatic the maker of this picture must have been, to divide Nubians up like that.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Bump
Notice he has all the time to distort and photshop images but avoids Anthro/Genetics studies like the Plague!!!
Another Thread exposing the fallacious and Fraudulent way Rahotep operates..!
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:In other words, the high levels of variation CAN'T be explained by geneflow. Go figure, what an unlearned lunatic the maker of this picture must have been, to divide Nubians up like that.
And the fact that Nubian crania classified into regions it never had contact with should attest to that fact...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^indeed.
Lol, still no sign of Rahotep?
Lets call it a day then.
Conclusions
-Despite outright public claims, and the use of blatant fabricated insertions into quotations, it hasn't been proven that Naqadan II elites were Armenoid in appearance, nor has it been shown that they resembled Europeans in cranial size. Basically, all Rahotep did was avoiding this thread whenever it got too hot under his feet, and ignoring OP directions again and again. When he made his lates effort to claim Eurasian origin for Nubians, he got his ass handed to him again, which is why he's AGAIN nowhere to be seen.
Lets wrap it up:
-Modern Egyptians are not the descendants of Predynastic Egyptians, nor are they descendants of Early dynastic Egyptians. What CAN be said, is that a subset of modern Egyptians are descendants of late dynastic Egyptians, while the rest are descendants of post dynastic foreigners.
-Naqadan II elites go out of their way to cluster with Nubian series, rather than contemporary neighboring Egyptians.
-Evidence regarding Naqada II differentiation per Derry are nowhere to be seen
-Multivariate analysis wherein Naqada II specimens appear ''Armenoid'' is nowhere to be seen
Ending conclusions with the following bit:
quote: Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.
The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.
1.Howells late dynastic ''E series'' plot near Maghrebi's in the chart above 2.Modern Egyptians resemble Magrebi's 3.Modern Egyptians thus resemble what Late dynastic ''E series'' would have looked like, at least on average. 4.Zakrewski's quotation above that deals with how late dynastic Egyptians were differentiated from earlier ones thus pertains to them as well.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Nobody should respond to Rahotep ANYWHERE unless he addresses the above.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
