Some have taken Keita's use of the term "coastal northern pattern" to imply a discrete form or set of phenotypes that is perhaps exclusive of the indigenous tropical African range of phenotypes. Is this what the “coastal northern pattern” invokes? To be sure, you might want to examine this piece from Keita…
“The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian- Maghreb modal pattern. It is clear however from the unknown analyses that the Abydene centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series.
Badari crania analyzed in this fashion revealed few or none which classified into the northern-Egyptian groups (Keita, 1990).
This **northern modal pattern**, which can be **called coastal northern African**, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes.
As noted earlier, Howells’ work (1973) also demonstrates this, and Howells notes the difference with the Nakada predynastic group. The Abydos crania as a series do have continuity with the southern pattern, but change occurs.
The notable increase in northern pattern crania in the south, from Badari times, might have a selection explanation, but the essentially bimodal nature of the presence of the contrasting trends suggests the presence of “real” northerners. Conditions in southern Upper Egypt between Badari and First Dynasty periods would not seem to have favored genetic drift; exogamy is postulated during Nakada times (Hassan, 1981, and this would tend to oppose the effects of drift, especially when coupled with an increasing population.. The effects of admixture and or heterosis on classification are unknown. (North-south hybrids may classify as northerners.)” - Keita
---- Note: So how is this increase in the “northern pattern” in the south explained? Reading further, and take note of “**”…
“Archaeology and history seem to provide the most parsimonious explanation for the variation in the royal tombs at Abydos. Tomb design suggests the presence of northerners in the south in late Nakada times (Hoffman, 1988) when the unification probably took place. Delta names are attached to some of the tombs at Abydos (Gardiner, 1961; Yurco, 1990, personal communication), thus perhaps supporting Petrie’s (1939) and Gardiner’s **contention that north-south marriages were undertaken to legitimize the hegemony of the south.** The courtiers of northern elites would have accompanied them. Given all of the above, it is probably not possible to view the Abydos royal tomb sample as representative of the general southern Upper Egyptian population of the time.
Southern elites and or their descendants eventually came to be buried in the north (Hoffman, 1988). Hence early Second Dynasty kings and Djoser (Dynasty 111) (Hayes, 1953) and his descendants are not buried in Abydos. Petrie (1939) states that the Third Dynasty, buried in the north, was of Sudanese origin, but southern Egypt is equally likely. This perhaps explains Harris and Weeks’ (1973) suggested findings of southern morphologies in some Old Kingdom Giza remains, also verified in portraiture (Drake, 1987).
Further study would be required to ascertain trends in the general population of both regions. - Keita
------ Note: With regards to the general population, it brings to mind Sonia Zakrzewski’s interesting piece, which investigated amongst other factors, the effects of increasing complexity of social organization and social hierarchy on growth patterns in stature of specimens encompassing social elites and the general populace, ranging from pre-dynastic periods to the dynastic periods spanning the Early dynastic to the Middle Kingdom, with specimens extracted largely from Middle to Upper Egypt.
Reading on..
“The strong Sudanese affinity noted in the unknown analyses may reflect the Nubian interactions with upper Egypt in predynastic times prior to Egyptian unification (Williams, 1980,1986). Ta Seti, the A-Group state based in Qustul (Fig. l), perhaps the earliest known kingdom in the Nile Valley (Williams, 1986), apparently conquered portions of upper Egypt. A-Group type royal tombs have been found in Upper Egypt (Williams, 1986). Later, Kmg Aha (Dynasty I) conquered Ta Seti, incorporating its territory and people into Egypt. Perhaps royal marriages and conquest further homogenized these groups. Ta Seti became the most southern nome of Egypt. On the other hand, early southern “Egyptian” metric phenotypes (Badari, Nakada I) overlap those of Kush/Nubia.
The “European” metrics of some of the crania clearly emphasize the contrasts found in the tombs. This may denote the range of variation encompassed by the coastal northern pattern, given its intermediate position, or reflect the presence of middle easterners. There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times.
Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less “native” are not supported by archeology. In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data.” - Keita.
---- So what have we learned?
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
So you think, according to your assessment of Keita's work, that dynastic northern egyptians were black mixed with Asiatic? I seem to think so to, I think the Ramesside family is a perfect example of this. But do you think northern europeans would be an appropriate cranial group to compare with egyptians, due to the wide geographical distance between the two regions? And who said Middle Easterners (who are racially, Caucausian) have crania exactly like europeans? Get back to me.
Peace. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
It is an issue of generalizations. While they can talk about "intermediate" centroid values between Southern and European, they dont really say what it means in terms of phenotype, especially skin color. Therefore, without measurements of MODERN populations in ALL parts of Africa to contrast and show if MODERN coastal populations have SIMILAR types of "intermediate" centroid values, it is HARD to really make any definitive conclusions. At least, that is without the WHOLE paper. I am against making OVERSIMPLIFIED statements that dont really CLARIFY anything. How do the ancient samples correspond to modern measurements? What is the phenotypical relationship between cranial measurements and facial features in MODERN people from similar locations? What does THAT tell us? Obviously, without the same amount of measurements on MODERN populations and the added dimension of LIVING people with phenotypes that can be observed, it is hard to say FOR SURE anything about the general phenotypes of the Egyptian or other African populations 5,000 years ago. Another thing that is odd is that it doesnt seem to take into account the cranial measurements of population IN the Sahara to the WEST of Egypt, where MANY researchers say the populations came from that SETTLED on the Nile, giving rise to Dynastic Egypt. What is the average of those centroid values and how do those moeasurements plot relative to other Africans and Europeans?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: And who said Middle Easterners (who are racially, Caucausian) have crania exactly like europeans? Get back to me.
Who said anything about 'middle easterners' being 'racially' caucasian, and what exactly would that mean, other than wrote repetititon of nonsense?
Keita didn't say this, so how is it relevant to his writings?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
After looking at the WHOLE paper, I got a better understanding of the CONTEXT in which to interperet this excerpt. Many times it is noted that those "intermediate" and "coastal" values need more study because they also contain a RANGE of values consistent with African diversity along with some that represent European values.
So you think, according to your assessment of Keita's work, that dynastic northern egyptians were black mixed with Asiatic? I seem to think so to, I think the Ramesside family is a perfect example of this. But do you think northern europeans would be an appropriate cranial group to compare with egyptians, due to the wide geographical distance between the two regions? And who said Middle Easterners (who are racially, Caucausian) have crania exactly like europeans?
When looking at craniometry, one has to understand that we are simply dealing with morphology [without the soft parts attached, off course], nothing else. As such, assessments are based on frequency of the discriminants under consideration. Cranial patterns common in the Levant, are more "generalized", in the sense that the contrasting morphological discriminants here, when compared with patterns in northern Eurasia, are relatively small. In this regard, the "generalized" pattern or trend approaching such, are observed in East African tropics, like in the African Horn, and Sahelian-West African regions. Just to give you an example; take prognathism, as a discriminant via certain angular cranial measurements. Such while not absent in northern Eurasian crania, is more frequent in various sub-Saharan crania. Decreasing tendencies of "stereotyped" traits [see: "Forest Negro"] of sub-Saharan Africans, is what prompts folks like Brace to say things like this:
"the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component."
"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa."
With that said, it would appear that patterns relatively less contrasting with those predominant in the Levant and northern Eurasia, though not exclusively, were found in the coastal African regions. Again, without skin attached, patterns predominant in southwest Asia and northern Eurasia, show relatively less contrasting trends. But the coastal northern [African] pattern is nothing homogenous, as Keita notes. It is 'intermediate', precisely because both trends that are predominant in tropical Africa and those predominant in northern Eurasia are notable in the northern African collections. The ancient Upper Egyptian crania, for instance, as Keita demonstrates, despite changes observed with time, continue to show stronger affinities with tropical African patterns, which are less "generalized" when compared to northern Eurasian patterns. Hence, to get a better assessment of cranial data, one has to compliment it with findings in molecular genetics, archeology and perhaps linguistics. But before I directly address your question, I'd like to know what you understand by "coastal northern pattern", after taking into consideration, what I just said!
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
When looking at craniometry, one has to understand that we are simply dealing with morphology [without the soft parts attached, of course], nothing else. As such, assessments are based on frequency of the discriminants under consideration...
...With that said, it would appear that patterns relatively less contrasting with those predominant in the Levant and northern Eurasia, though not exclusively, were found in the coastal African regions...
...But the coastal northern [African] pattern is nothing homogenous, as Keita notes. It is 'intermediate', precisely because both trends that are predominant in tropical Africa and those predominant in northern Eurasia are notable in the northern African collections...
...to get a better assessment of cranial data, one has to compliment it with findings in molecular genetics, archeology and perhaps linguistics.
The notable increase in northern pattern crania in the south, from Badari times, might have a selection explanation, but the essentially bimodal nature of the presence of the contrasting trends suggests the presence of “real” northerners. Conditions in southern Upper Egypt between Badari and First Dynasty periods would not seem to have favored genetic drift; exogamy is postulated during Nakada times (Hassan, 1981, and this would tend to oppose the effects of drift, especially when coupled with an increasing population...
The **effects of admixture** and or heterosis on classification are **unknown**. (North-south hyrids may classify as northerners.)” - Keita
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The problem is some people don't understand what the studies really say, and only pick and select certain words which fit their fancy or dogma.
Keita - This northern modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes.
Intermediate centroid values does NOT necessarily mean "mixed". As it has been discussed in this forum ad-infinitum, indigenous Africans vary in features which is why certain peoples in East as well as West and even Central Africa have at one time been classified as "caucasoids" or having "caucasoid admixture".
Note that the centroid values of northern Egyptians approximates to Northern Europeans. Can anyone remember Evil-Euro's nutty rantings that because of cranial studies, Somalis are closer to Danes than other Africans?! LOL
The “European” metrics of some of the crania clearly emphasize the contrasts found in the tombs. This may denote the range of variation encompassed by the coastal northern pattern, given its intermediate position, or reflect the presence of middle easterners. There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times.
Unfortunately, some people just don't (won't) get it...
Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less “native” are not supported by archeology. In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data. - Keita.
..no matter how many findings you throw in their faces.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Just so everyone (at least those with sense) can understand.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Since, Obelisk_18 apparently saw it fit not to give a feedback, I'll go ahead and answer the following in a more direct manner anyway:
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
So you think, according to your assessment of Keita's work, that dynastic northern egyptians were black mixed with Asiatic? I seem to think so to, I think the Ramesside family is a perfect example of this.
It is contextual. Here is what Keita thinks happened in northern Egypt during the proto-dynastic era to the Old Kingdom:
"The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an early ancestral group, by drift and gene exchange with the Near East. (This however, would not negate their lineage relationship with southerners.)
**Later**, depending on "starting" orientation, the **dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972).** Making a neat north/south "racial" division in dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically unsound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These racial terms are unnecessary. The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. **The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series.
And then, Keita concludes with:
This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occurred, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers. **The early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archeological data also support this position, which is not new.**
Over time, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile Valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants."
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
But do you think northern europeans would be an appropriate cranial group to compare with egyptians, due to the wide geographical distance between the two regions? And who said Middle Easterners (who are racially, Caucausian) have crania exactly like europeans? Get back to me.
Peace.
You may have noticed that Keita put the term European in quotation marks, meaning presumably European metrics, as various European researchers have noted as template values or standards by which to adjudge European cranio-metrical analysis. There is no way of knowing just by craniometry, to adjudge whether a given specimen from a geographical location outside of Europe, which nonetheless is relatively 'generalized' when compared with European specimens, that recent gene flow is accountable for such. Specimens from the Levant, for example, and mind you without skin attached, may well seem 'generalized' when compared with European specimens, meaning that, contrasting dicriminants are relatively shallow. Heck, even some specimens from the Sahelian regions, and the African Horn for example, may be relatively 'generalized' when compared with "Near Eastern" or "European" specimens; again, the point being that the constrasting morphological discriminants are relatively lesser when compared to specimens elsewhere with relatively sharper morphological discriminants. Needless to say, when talking about discriminants, final assessments are usually made in general terms, with regards to frequency of the variables under testing. Some specific traits are relatively more frequent in some pooled samples than others. For intance, while the so-called "Elongated" African specimens, when pooled together, may appear relatively 'generalized' with respect to those from southwest Asia and northern Eurasia, they also overlap with the so-called "Broad" types in some instances. For intance, although perhaps not as frequent as amongst the "Broad" types, prognathism may be relatively more frequent in the "Elongated" specimens than in some northern Eurasian specimens, prompting someone to call the phenomenon as a "hint" of "sub-Saharan", as Brace for example, inaccurately utilized the term "sub-Saharan".
Here are some interesting and instructive excerpts from Keita's notes:
“Kerma in the Sudan was the center of the early Kush state. These crania date from 2000 to 1800 BC. Collett (1933: 258) notes that: an attempt to divide the whole into two contrasting groups showed that it was quite impossible to distinguish the negroid specimens with any degree of exactness. Hence it was concluded that the safest procedure was to treat the total series as if it represented a single racial type which would obviously be one possessing negroid characters.”
“These crania are easily seen as “Elongated African” (Hiernaux, 1975) or “Nilotic Negro” (Rightmire, 1975a,b), rather than hybrids. The choice of Kerma as the series representative of Nubia is based on the observation that it lay in the middle range of Nubian variation (Mukherjee et al., 1955) and by Crichton’s (1966) views that Nubian series are the most appropriate comparison series of a Negroid people in studies examining Egyptian variation in its African context Ethnic Nubians, called Nehesy by the ancient Egyptians, vary in their phenotype. However, Egyptians, even those with the stereotypically Negroid (Broad) phenotype, were not called Nehesy, reinforcing the idea that Nehesy was an ethno-geographic, not “racial” term (Drake, 1987). The pharaoh who forbade the northern migration of riverine Nubians into Egypt was of an obviously “Negroid dynasty (Yurco, 1989), known to have southern origins.”
Hiernaux (1975) has accounted for variation in Africa using a nonracial approach; he does not specifically address the northern Nile Valley in great detail, but his concepts, based on micro-evolutionary principles (adaptation, drift, selection), are applicable in this region in the light of recent archaeological data. For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans, narrow faces and noses (versus broad “Negro” ones) do not usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or “Europoid“ (Caucasian) genes, called Hamitic as once taught, but represent indigenous variation, either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift (Hiernaux, 1975).
Hiernaux calls this morphology “Elongated African.” Some of the neolithic Saharans of tropical African affinity (Sutton, 1974; Hiernaux, 1975; after Chamla, 1968) who emigrated to the Nile Valley (Hassan, 1988) might be an example. The view that “elongated” characteristics are indigenous and equally tropical African (“Black) for specific archaeological series and peoples is supported by Gabel (19661, Hiernaux (1975), and Rightmire (1975a,b). The range of variation, “Broad” (stereotypical “Negro”) to Elongated, can be subsumed within a single unit designated Africoid, thereby acknowledging the wider affinities and multiple tropical microadaptive strategies, as well as drift.
Hiernaux’s perspectives are relevant to the creators of ancient Nile Valley culture, which is an integral part of, and originated in a larger African context (Frankfort, 1950; Childe, 1953; de Heinzelin, 1962; Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Fairman, 1965; Clark, 1970; Shaw, 1976; Vercoutter, 1978; Aldred, 1978; Hassan, 1988), and is not simply a part of, or a corridor to or from the “Mediterranean world”-a cultural construct with limited explanatory power today, as noted by Herzfeld (1984), and almost certainly less in the early Holocene.
“Mediterranean,” connoting a “race,” “one interbreeding population,” at the craniometric level, is questionable as defining the “Middle East” during the Bronze Age (Finkel, 1974,1978), invalid as a term linking geography to a uniform external phenotype (see Snowden, 1970; MacGaffey, 1966; Keita, 1990), inaccurate as a metric taxon for many groups previously assigned to it (Rightmire, 1975a,b), and problematic as a bony craniofacial morphotype denoting a “race” or Mendelian population because of its varied soft-part trait associations and wide geographical distribution (see “Hamitic” in Coon et al., 1950; Gabel, 1966; MacGaffey, 1966; Hiernaux, 1975; Rightmire, 1975a)…
Conclusions from cephalometric work imply the presence of southern phenotypes in the north in Old Kingdom times (Harris and Weeks, 1973), which become “foreign” in a chronological sense by New Kingdom times. Northern and dynastic Egyptians were postulated to be different from early southerners because of the invasion of a “dynastic race” or gene flow from the Near East (Smith, 1916; Derry, 1956; Trigger, 1987). Careful reading of these studies suggests synchronic and diachronic craniofacial variation in the north. Howells’ (1973) study which included the late dynastic northern “E” series, shows its “intermediateness,” since with a synthetic cluster technique it groups with northern Europeans but with a divisive method with tropical Africans (and of the Broad, [b]not Elongated physiognomy). Both approaches are valid but some investigators claim that the divisive technique produces more “natural” groups (Blakith and Reyment. 1971). Howells interprets the “E” series as being less Negroid than the pre-dynastic Nakadans, and “basically as European but converging on sub-Saharan Africans either through genetic contribution or environmental adaptation.” “Genetic contribution” is a more likely explanation given northern Egypt’s location, although it is not clear what the geographic origin of the “first” pre-Neolithic northern Egyptian populations was. The “E” series comes from the most cosmopolitan area of the country and from the era of foreign domination and settlement from northern Libya and the Near East. The “intermediateness” of the “E” series illustrates the nature of populations below the species or subspecies level (Abott et al., 1985)." - Keita
Watch this space!
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Supercar, dawg, be patient, I was in class so I couldn't respond I kinda get what you're saying about "northern coastal africans phenotypes" but you still break it down further to laymen's terms, cause I'm not that trained in anthropology .
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
More noteworthy excerpts from Keita:
The peopling of what is now the Egyptian Nile Valley, judging from archaeological and biological data, was apparently the result of a complex interaction between coastal northern Africans, “neolithic” Saharans, Nilotic hunters, and riverine proto-Nubians with some influence and migration from the Levant (Hassan, 1988). The major variability of early “Egyptians” is thus seen to have been mainly established in the proto-predynastic period by the settling of all of these peoples. No ongoing major mass movements of new groups into the valley are postulated between the early pre-dynastic and the latest dynastic period, with the possible exception of the Asiatic Hyksos.
Internal movements did occur. Given all of the data, these explanations of variability and its temporal origin are more plausible than Smith’s migration (1916) theories [or Oliver’s (1981) view echoing Morton (1844), which sees the presence of Egyptians with Negroid phenotypes as being the result of slavery during dynastic times!] The people with the various described phenotypes were united very early by a developing common culture. **By the time of the unification they were all “indigenous” and primarily African in origin.**
No major migrations need be invoked in most cases in dynastic times to explain variation. The next migrations of probable major genetic impact were during the late dynastic periods and beyond, after Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman ascensions. The predominant cranio-metric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is “southern” (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results (Keita, 1990). This pattern is seen in both group and unknown analyses. However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are ob- served also, thus making for great diversity. The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African to European metric phenotypes (Keita, 1990). It is not possible to say, because of the complex geometry of the multivariate method (Blakith and Reyment, 1971), what more specific affinities individual crania may have. The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians (Keita, 1990).
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Supercar, dawg, be patient, I was in class so I couldn't respond I kinda get what you're saying about "northern coastal africans phenotypes" but you still break it down further to laymen's terms, cause I'm not that trained in anthropology
My bad then. But to put it simply, Saharo-tropical cranio-morphological range comprises all sorts of cranial patterns from the so-called "broad" nasal index, prognathus, round-face, to narrow nasal index, orthoganus, "narrow faces", and so forth. Keita sees the northern Egyptian proto-dynastic and early dynastic groups as largely of indigenous extraction, from early Nile Valley settlers from Saharo-tropical regions, who "might" have seen some gene flow from the "Near East" before state formation of dynastic Egypt, but not in the sense of "mass migration" from the Levant, and not enough to really make much of an impact on pre-existing Nile Valley populations, who would have still had ties with their upper Nile Valley counterparts, lineage-wise; Any potential immigrant from the "Near East" in Lower Egypt would have assimilated and become part of the pre-existing or developing African cultural complex, rather than supplanting it. In upper Egypt, meanwhile, we are already familiar with the relatively superior social organizations over there, spanning the proto-dynastic to state formation, not to mention, larger population sizes over here at the time. So in a nutshell, development of complex social organization in the Nile Valley through to state formation of dynastic Egypt had nothing to do with "mass migration" into the Nile Valley.
Ps - The lack of clear assessment on the "starting orientation" [as Keita put it] of Lower pre-dynastic Egyptian specimens, from a cranio-morphological standpoint, has to do with very poor conservation of pre-dynastic Lower Egyptian skeletal remains.
Keeping in mind how fluid craniometry can be, based on either evolutionary convergence (parallel evolution) and/or gene flow,…
Coastal north African pattern can be interpreted as:
“…northern modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes.” - Keita
Example #1:
“The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African to European metric phenotypes (Keita, 1990).
Example #2:
**The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series. - Keita
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^So these studies pretty much repeat what Batrawi et al. has said.
The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute: "The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia" (1945) Batrawi - Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
This is addressed specifically to Djehuti:
You really think Keita is a modern, objective form of Batwari? I can see where you're coming from, but Keita states that the Lower Egyptian and Upper Egyptian cranio-facial patterns converge on one another, where as Batwari states that the "northern type" dominates from the first dynasty onwards. But doesn't Keita say the Late dynastic northern egyptian crania are similar to a subset of "middle eastern" crania? Get back to me.
Peace. Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
Very nice thread Supercar. One must look very carefully at terminology and context within these anthropological studies, otherwise it is very easy to misinterpret conclusions.
Btw, when you are citing studies could you please end the citation with the name of the study you are quoting from? I am familiar enough with which quote comes from which but some readers may want to look up the studies and not know where the text comes from.
Example:
Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less “native” are not supported by archeology. In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data.” - Keita 1992 (Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa) Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
You really think Keita is a modern, objective form of Batwari? I can see where you're coming from, but Keita states that the Lower Egyptian and Upper Egyptian cranio-facial patterns converge on one another, where as Batwari states that the "northern type" dominates from the first dynasty onwards.
Are you basing this on another citation of Batrawi's elsewhere, or the piece that Djehuti just cited? The piece Djehuti cited talks of "closely related types", which if based on cranial data alone, as I suspect, would imply overlapping of craniometry in composite entities from northern Egypt and southern Egypt. It would be good to know what specimens, not to mention the era, Batrawi presumably studied.
quote:Obelisk_18:
But doesn't Keita say the Late dynastic northern egyptian crania are similar to a subset of "middle eastern" crania?
I believe this should have been worded the other way around, which is: a "subset" of late dynastic north Egyptian crania likely had affinities with "middle eastern" crania. Northern Egyptian crania contained crania ranging from equatorial or tropical patterns to the relatively generalized patterns with respect to those seen in the Maghreb [which also exhibits an intermediate pattern], "Near East" and Europe. See the coming posts:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^So these studies pretty much repeat what Batrawi et al. has said.
The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute: "The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia" (1945)
Batrawi - Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period.
Not sure what you specifically mean, but if you referring the point about ancient north Egyptian and south Egyptian populations showing distinctive trends while sharing bloodlines, then Keita does raise this issue, and yes, even cites Batrawi in that regard. Of course, Batrawi's analysis is based relative frequencies of traits observed in the ‘composite’ entities under study. Recall Tut's crania being referred to as "North African Caucasian" presumably based on the "narrow" nasal index. Keita's studies show ancient north Egyptian collections to be intermediate, with regards to the containing cranial patterns observed in tropical African specimens and “Eurasian” specimens, and as such, any extrapolation towards a somewhat "homogenous" orientation at some point in time in coastal/northern Egypt, would be just that, i.e. speculation. Also, recall Hiernaux’s assessments about sub-Saharan African diversity, in terms of the traits which the Batrawi citation makes note of. Earliest remains in the Nile Valley and even the Levant, tend to fit the "stereotyped" Forest Negro, and while aside from such remains [i.e. featuring “stereotyped” traits] uncovered in East Africa, which Groves interestingly dubs as "generalized", remains featuring narrow cranial index and nasal index had also been uncovered in Kenya.
Recalling from Keita:
“For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans, narrow faces and noses (versus broad “Negro” ones) do not usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or “Europoid“ (Caucasian) genes, called Hamitic as once taught, but represent indigenous variation, either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift (Hiernaux, 1975).”
With regards to the aforementioned “intermediate” status of composite ancient northern Egyptian and Maghreban specimens, also dubbed “coastal northern” pattern, we have:
"The analyses demonstrate the metric heterogeneity of pre-Roman mid-Holocene Maghreban crania. The range of variation in the restricted area described extends from a tropical African metric pattern to a European one and supports the phenotypic variability observed in and near Carthage by ancient writers and in morphological studies. Thus the population emerges as a composite entity, no doubt also containing hybrid individuals. However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indicates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans.. Furthermore, the series from the coastal Maghreb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses." - Keita
Some more interesting read:
"The predynastic crania of northern Egypt have been stated to be less or non- “Negroid” (Coon 1939), although some writers have reported features generally called such in some northern groups (Hayes 1965). Wiercinski’s (1962, 1963) detailed anatomical descriptions of northern crania, suggest that there was some overlap with more southern groups like the Nubians, although more different than Badari groups from further south. Badari and Nakada crania fall within the range of “Neolithic” Saharan and later Nubian or Kushite crania (see descriptions above; personal observation). Descriptions (Briggs 1955; Chamla 1968) of these “Neolithic” Saharan crania suggest extensive overlap with the various kinds of southern Egyptian and tropical African morphologies and metric patterns. Hiernaux (1975) suggests that these Saharan patterns are ancestral to those of later West Africans; this would perhaps include of the narrow-faced and narrow-nosed “Elongated” groups to which the label “Hamitic” was once applied. He has parsimoniously explained how the “Hamitic” morphology, called by him “Elongated,” is indigenous to Africa, and not due to external sources. The natural geographical range of these populations included at least southern Egypt." - Keita
Coon reputation for reactionary work and outdated concepts are all too known, but it is interesting to note that he makes note of “predynastic” northern Egyptian specimens, which as far as I know, have rarely been available to researchers for studies, due to poor conservative conditions that were prevalent in northern Egypt, i.e. as far as skeletal remains are concerned.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Not sure what you [Djehuti] specifically mean, but if you referring the point about ancient north Egyptian and south Egyptian populations showing distinctive trends while sharing bloodlines, then Keita does raise this issue, and yes, even cites Batrawi in that regard...
That is exactly what I mean. Batrawi calls the Upper and Lower Egyptian populations 'distinct' due to certain differences, yet closely related due to certain commonalities.
quote:..Of course, Batrawi's analysis is based relative frequencies of traits observed in the ‘composite’ entities under study. Recall Tut's crania being referred to as "North African Caucasian" presumably based on the "narrow" nasal index. Keita's studies show ancient north Egyptian collections to be intermediate, with regards to the containing cranial patterns observed in tropical African specimens and “Eurasian” specimens, and as such, any extrapolation towards a somewhat "homogenous" orientation at some point in time in coastal/northern Egypt, would be just that, i.e. speculation. Also, recall Hiernaux’s assessments about sub-Saharan African diversity, in terms of the traits which the Batrawi citation makes note of. Earliest remains in the Nile Valley and even the Levant, tend to fit the "stereotyped" Forest Negro, and while aside from such remains [i.e. featuring “stereotyped” traits] uncovered in East Africa, which Groves interestingly dubs as "generalized", remains featuring narrow cranial index and nasal index had also been uncovered in Kenya.
Indeed, such reactionary conclusions of "caucasoid" come from debunked Coonian anthroplogy. We all know that such so-called 'kacazoid' features are indigenous to Africans have nothing to do with foreign incursions.
quote:Recalling from Keita:
“For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans, narrow faces and noses (versus broad “Negro” ones) do not usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or “Europoid“ (Caucasian) genes, called Hamitic as once taught, but represent indigenous variation, either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift (Hiernaux, 1975).”
Correct.
quote:With regards to the aforementioned “intermediate” status of composite ancient northern Egyptian and Maghreban specimens, also dubbed “coastal northern” pattern, we have:
"The analyses demonstrate the metric heterogeneity of pre-Roman mid-Holocene Maghreban crania. The range of variation in the restricted area described extends from a tropical African metric pattern to a European one and supports the phenotypic variability observed in and near Carthage by ancient writers and in morphological studies. Thus the population emerges as a composite entity, no doubt also containing hybrid individuals. However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indicates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans.. Furthermore, the series from the coastal Maghreb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses." - Keita
^I myself am not all surprised by such findings. In fact, I have for long while hypothesized that Lower Egyptians have a close relation to early peoples of the Maghreb. In fact, I think the 'intermediate' status comes from certain features. For example, Berbers like the Tuareg have 'peculiar' features like long straight noses.
Are you also aware that the earliest European descriptions of coastal North Africans other than Egyptians as made by the Greeks described them as 'Aethiopes'? Greeks describe Libyans and others further west of Egypt as black peoples. There is no reference of 'Asiatic' or even European type looks to these peoples.
quote:Some more interesting read:
"The predynastic crania of northern Egypt have been stated to be less or non- “Negroid” (Coon 1939), although some writers have reported features generally called such in some northern groups (Hayes 1965). Wiercinski’s (1962, 1963) detailed anatomical descriptions of northern crania, suggest that there was some overlap with more southern groups like the Nubians, although more different than Badari groups from further south. Badari and Nakada crania fall within the range of “Neolithic” Saharan and later Nubian or Kushite crania (see descriptions above; personal observation). Descriptions (Briggs 1955; Chamla 1968) of these “Neolithic” Saharan crania suggest extensive overlap with the various kinds of southern Egyptian and tropical African morphologies and metric patterns. Hiernaux (1975) suggests that these Saharan patterns are ancestral to those of later West Africans; this would perhaps include of the narrow-faced and narrow-nosed “Elongated” groups to which the label “Hamitic” was once applied. He has parsimoniously explained how the “Hamitic” morphology, called by him “Elongated,” is indigenous to Africa, and not due to external sources. The natural geographical range of these populations included at least southern Egypt." - Keita[/qb]
Another example of the fact of African phenotypic diversity that so many people are obvlious of.
quote:Coon reputation for reactionary work and outdated concepts are all too known, but it is interesting to note that he makes note of “predynastic” northern Egyptian specimens, which as far as I know, have rarely been available to researchers for studies, due to poor conservative conditions that were prevalent in northern Egypt, i.e. as far as skeletal remains are concerned.
Yes, and then you have people who simply just can't "stand" having entirely indigenous or shall I say 'pure' Africans responsible for such cultural achievements, but would rather for them to be of "mixed" non-African origins. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I myself am not all surprised by such findings. In fact, I have for long while hypothesized that Lower Egyptians have a close relation to early peoples of the Maghreb. In fact, I think the 'intermediate' status comes from certain features. For example, Berbers like the Tuareg have 'peculiar' features like long straight noses.
Are you also aware that the earliest European descriptions of coastal North Africans other than Egyptians as made by the Greeks described them as 'Aethiopes'? Greeks describe Libyans and others further west of Egypt as black peoples. There is no reference of 'Asiatic' or even European type looks to these peoples.
I was following you elsewhere, except when it came to the highlighted piece. Can you please elaborate on it. I've always thought that the Tuareg physiognomy was to be placed and found in the Saharo-tropical ranges. Does Hiernaux come to mind?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
My theory of human facial physiogamy is that humans are peculiarly adapted to communicating. Communication is primarly based on sound [speech] and sight.
In order to communicate with one another, humans have developed and amazing tendency for variable facial features, and an ability to identify one another [a prerequisite for sophesticated communication] on sight.
Think about this in terms of, you meet somone, one time, and then years later you see them in and airport in another city half 'round the world.
How can you possible identify one person from among the millions?
You can because you recognise their face.
Humans closest relatives - Chimpanzees - can't do this.
In fact it is objectively true that Chimpanzee faces do not vary as much as human.
Chimps and dogs can recognise humans by 'sight' better than they can recognise individuals within their own species. Humans are simply, by design, different in appearance one from another.
Which leads to....
There is documented tendency of humans and hominids to *either* have rounded faces with lower noses and protrusion of the jaw, *or* narrow faces with longer higher noses and less protrusion of the jaw.
These tendencies are further influenced by selection to climate and sexual selection.
This goes back even to Neanderthal man.
Remember - before it was known that Neanderthal is a separate species...some anthropologist, Carelton Coon comes to mind, tried to classify them 'racially' as negroid or caucazoid.
This is also why even on the isolated Andaman Islands, or Paleolithic rift valley Africa 'skulls' were mis-classified according to racial archtypes.
Racially is essentially a sophistry buzzword, something meant to give illusion of meaning, while evading being pinned down on specifics
Cranioficial variation is not 'racial'.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
My theory of human facial physiogamy is that humans are peculiarly adapted to communicating. Communication is primarly based on sound [speech] and sight.
In order to communicate with one another, humans have developed and amazing tendency for variable facial features, and an ability to identify one another [a prerequisite for sophesticated communication] on sight.
Think about this in terms of, you meet somone, one time, and then years later you see them in and airport in another city half 'round the world.
How can you possible identify one person from among the millions?
You can because you recognise their face.
Humans closest relatives - Chimpanzees - can't do this.
In fact it is objectively true that Chimpanzee faces do not vary as much as human.
Chimps and dogs can recognise humans by 'sight' better than they can recognise individuals within their own species. Humans are simply, by design, different in appearance one from another.
Which leads to....
There is documented tendency of humans and hominids to *either* have rounded faces with lower noses and protrusion of the jaw, *or* narrow faces with longer higher noses and less protrusion of the jaw.
These tendencies are further influenced by selection to climate and sexual selection.
Human cranial physiognomy is indeed complex, and a number of factors can be at play; as with pretty much any other bone morphology, it cannot be genetically predicted or predetermined.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Thus the double game of our old friend 'racial reality' [Evil Euro], where 'n-groid' features in Europeans is not 'racial', but 'K-zoid' features found anywhere are *always* 'racial.'
Leading to the question -> what means 'racial'?
Resulting always in no answer, because the 'reality' is he didn't have one.
Now back to the AE:
Of one claims that the AE we not black 'racially', one assumes the burdan of proof in regards to 'racially', as a necessary qualifier of 'blackness'.
If they can't affirm the meaning of 'racially' then their statement is without merit.
If one claims that the AE were 'Black', one abobts the burdan of proof with regards to 'Black'.
For the definition given is both ancient and current, reflected in what the "AE" called themselves.
Those who disagree have two valid options.
1) prove the existence of race. 2) dis-prove the existence of Km.t [Blacks], as defined.
It's and open challenge.....
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Those who disagree have two valid options.
1) prove the existence of race. 2) dis-prove the existence of Km.t [Blacks], as defined.
It's and open challenge.....
Must be daunting, as nobody has been up for it here to date, and it remains to be seen if anybody will, soon enough.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I myself am not all surprised by such findings. In fact, I have for long while hypothesized that Lower Egyptians have a close relation to early peoples of the Maghreb. In fact, I think the 'intermediate' status comes from certain features. For example, Berbers like the Tuareg have 'peculiar' features like long straight noses.
Are you also aware that the earliest European descriptions of coastal North Africans other than Egyptians as made by the Greeks described them as 'Aethiopes'? Greeks describe Libyans and others further west of Egypt as black peoples. There is no reference of 'Asiatic' or even European type looks to these peoples.
I was following you elsewhere, except when it came to the highlighted piece. Can you please elaborate on it. I've always thought that the Tuareg physiognomy was to be placed and found in the Saharo-tropical ranges. Does Hiernaux come to mind?
I never said that Tuareg physiognomy wasn't to be placed in the Saharo-tropical ranges! I'm merely repeating what I've heard from some Africans and peoples who visited Africa who describe Tuareg features including the so-called 'peculiarity' of their long straight noses. As if such noses are not found elsewhere in Africa! I have also noticed that many depictions of Lower Egyptians show them to have the same type of 'Tuareg' nose! Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
My theory of human facial physiogamy is that humans are peculiarly adapted to communicating. Communication is primarly based on sound [speech] and sight.
In order to communicate with one another, humans have developed and amazing tendency for variable facial features, and an ability to identify one another [a prerequisite for sophesticated communication] on sight.
Think about this in terms of, you meet somone, one time, and then years later you see them in and airport in another city half 'round the world.
How can you possible identify one person from among the millions?
You can because you recognise their face.
Humans closest relatives - Chimpanzees - can't do this.
In fact it is objectively true that Chimpanzee faces do not vary as much as human.
Chimps and dogs can recognise humans by 'sight' better than they can recognise individuals within their own species. Humans are simply, by design, different in appearance one from another.
Which leads to....
There is documented tendency of humans and hominids to *either* have rounded faces with lower noses and protrusion of the jaw, *or* narrow faces with longer higher noses and less protrusion of the jaw.
These tendencies are further influenced by selection to climate and sexual selection.
Human cranial physiognomy is indeed complex, and a number of factors can be at play; as with pretty much any other bone morphology, it cannot be genetically predicted or predetermined.
Human cranial morphology is stated to be thee most variable trait of the human species. Even the morphology of the rest of the skeletal body does not vary as much and scientists have a better chance determining origins through that. Although, of course tropical body plans are not confined to Africans alone and neither are cold body plans to Europeans. Still, the range of variability among facial traits is very great. There are many anthropologists who agree with the theory Rasol provides. That such facial variablity may very well have to do with communication and identification.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Thus the double game of our old friend 'racial reality' [Evil Euro], where 'n-groid' features in Europeans is not 'racial', but 'K-zoid' features found anywhere are *always* 'racial.'
Leading to the question -> what means 'racial'?
Resulting always in no answer, because the 'reality' is he didn't have one.
The same can even be said of some Africans who speak of "Bantu" features and "Horner"/"Aethiopid" features! LOL
quote:Now back to the AE:
Of one claims that the AE we not black 'racially', one assumes the burdan of proof in regards to 'racially', as a necessary qualifier of 'blackness'.
If they can't affirm the meaning of 'racially' then their statement is without merit.
If one claims that the AE were 'Black', one abobts the burdan of proof with regards to 'Black'.
For the definition given is both ancient and current, reflected in what the "AE" called themselves.
Those who disagree have two valid options.
1) prove the existence of race. 2) dis-prove the existence of Km.t [Blacks], as defined.
It's and open challenge.....
And unfortunately others try to play the game of stupid semantic in claiming that Egyptians have 'brown' skin which is different from 'black'! LMAO Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
So, late dynastic northern Egyptians had phenotypes "intermediate" between tropical Africans (e.g. Upper Egyptians) and Europeans...what would that look like, Halle Berry or any other person who's half-black, half-white in America today?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ How woud you rate southern Europeans in terms of your nomenclature.
Are they half white?
Are all native Europeans southern and northern 'completely white'?
Based on what?
Your discourse is irrational and biased.
I don't really expect answers.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Uppity up ya'll.
And rasol how is UM question "irrational" he just means in Keita's term "intermediate" did he mean to say the the average lower egyptian look like Halle Berry? What's your interpretation?
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:Uppity up ya'll.
And rasol how is UM question "irrational" he just means in Keita's term "intermediate" did he mean to say the the average lower egyptian look like Halle Berry? What's your interpretation?
I think he means why are people in africa not expected to have differences in look without explenation of outside influnece, while people in europe (such as south euro) are considered to have native look despite visible difference between them and north euros.
btw now that we are on this, i've noticed here in sweden when the police is after a middle-eastern suspect (which they always are) they never say "middle eastern appearence" they always say "the man has a southern european appearence", always, even though southern europeans in sweden are very few, while 70 percent of immigrants here a from the middle east and people know exactly who they mean. I wonder why this is, i always thought it was a "political correctness" thing to do, but now i think they maybe try to institutionalize that this look is more natural to southern europeans while middle easterners have been influenced by southern europeans Maybe im drifting LOL
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: I wonder why this is, i always thought it was a "political correctness" thing to do, but now i think they maybe try to institutionalize that this look is more natural to southern europeans while middle easterners have been influenced by southern europeans
Evergreen Writes:
Interesting position. Anthropologists make many references to the so-called "Bantu" migrations from North Africa. Very seldom have we seen research on the Germanic migrations over most of Europe, NW Africa and parts of SW Asia and the genetic impact.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:Uppity up ya'll.
And rasol how is UM question "irrational" he just means in Keita's term "intermediate" did he mean to say the the average lower egyptian look like Halle Berry? What's your interpretation?
I think he means why are people in africa not expected to have differences in look without explenation of outside influnece, while people in europe (such as south euro) are considered to have native look despite visible difference between them and north euros.
Bingo! Yonis, you hit it right on target. Underpants asked merely what is meant by "intermediate", but when taking native African even "Sub-Saharan" phenotypical diversity into account it is not so hard to imagine. His question is kind of redundant anyway since it has already been answered by ME!
Again I repeat: In Braces early studies on African crania (the same one Evil-Euro loves to use) it is noted that Somali are also said to be "intermediate" between 'Sub-Saharans' (Bantus) and Western Europeans. In fact Evil-Euro loves to talk about how Somalis in certain craniofacial aspects are closer to Dutch than to say South African Bambuti! Now, does this mean Somalis look like a mix between Dutch and Bantus?? Of course not!
quote:btw now that we are on this, i've noticed here in sweden when the police is after a middle-eastern suspect (which they always are) they never say "middle eastern appearence" they always say "the man has a southern european appearence", always, even though southern europeans in sweden are very few, while 70 percent of immigrants here a from the middle east and people know exactly who they mean. I wonder why this is, i always thought it was a "political correctness" thing to do, but now i think they maybe try to institutionalize that this look is more natural to southern europeans while middle easterners have been influenced by southern europeans Maybe im drifting LOL
LOL You are correct Yonis! It is indeed a "politically correct" debaucle. They try so hard not to discriminate against peoples of Middle Eastern descent by avoiding the phrase Middle-Eastern looking LOL. Yet they fail to realize that peoples of the Middle East are of diverse ancestry and looks and Southern Europeans themselves have Middle-Eastern ancestry! So you can see the fallacy in this politically incorrect "politically correct" nonsense. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man:
So, late dynastic northern Egyptians had phenotypes "intermediate" between tropical Africans (e.g. Upper Egyptians) and Europeans...what would that look like, Halle Berry or any other person who's half-black, half-white in America today?
Repeatedly reading a material is sometimes the best way to understand something that was not adequately understood the first time around, when it was posted. So again, from earlier notes herein...
[*]When looking at craniometry, one has to understand that we are simply dealing with morphology [without the soft parts attached, off course], nothing else. As such, assessments are based on frequency of the discriminants under consideration.
Cranial patterns common in the Levant, are more "generalized", in the sense that the contrasting morphological discriminants here, when compared with patterns in northern Eurasia, are relatively small. In this regard, the "generalized" pattern or trend approaching such, are observed in East African tropics, like in the African Horn, and Sahelian-West African regions. Just to give you an example; take prognathism, as a discriminant via certain angular cranial measurements. Such while not absent in northern Eurasian crania, is more frequent in various sub-Saharan crania. Decreasing tendencies of "stereotyped" traits [see: "Forest Negro"] of sub-Saharan Africans, is what prompts folks like Brace to say things like this:
"the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component."
"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa."
[*]You may have noticed that Keita put the term European in quotation marks, meaning presumably European metrics, as various European researchers have noted as template values or standards by which to adjudge European cranio-metrical analysis. There is no way of knowing just by craniometry, to adjudge whether a given specimen from a geographical location outside of Europe, which nonetheless is relatively 'generalized' when compared with European specimens, that recent gene flow is accountable for such.
Specimens from the Levant, for example, and mind you without skin attached, may well seem 'generalized' when compared with European specimens, meaning that, contrasting dicriminants are relatively shallow. Heck, even some specimens from the Sahelian regions, and the African Horn for example, may be relatively 'generalized' when compared with "Near Eastern" or "European" specimens; again, the point being that the contrasting morphological discriminants are relatively lesser when compared to specimens elsewhere with relatively sharper morphological discriminants. ..
…Some specific traits are relatively more frequent in some pooled samples than others. For instance, while the so-called "Elongated" African specimens, when pooled together, may appear relatively 'generalized' with respect to those from southwest Asia and northern Eurasia, they also overlap with the so-called "Broad" types in some instances. For instance, although perhaps not as frequent as amongst the "Broad" types, prognathism may be relatively more frequent in the "Elongated" specimens than in some northern Eurasian specimens, prompting someone to call the phenomenon as a "hint" of "sub-Saharan", as Brace for example, inaccurately utilized the term "sub-Saharan".
Here are some interesting and instructive excerpts from Keita's notes:
“Kerma in the Sudan was the center of the early Kush state. These crania date from 2000 to 1800 BC. Collett (1933: 258) notes that: an attempt to divide the whole into two contrasting groups showed that it was quite impossible to distinguish the negroid specimens with any degree of exactness. Hence it was concluded that the safest procedure was to treat the total series as if it represented a single racial type which would obviously be one possessing negroid characters.”
^^The researchers in question, as you can see, were at pains to box the variations in their specimens into clear cut caricature phenotypes, but how did Hiernaux interpret this phenomenon, according to Keita? Well, see below…
“These crania are easily seen as “Elongated African” (Hiernaux, 1975) or “Nilotic Negro” (Rightmire, 1975a,b), rather than hybrids. The choice of Kerma as the series representative of Nubia is based on the observation that it lay in the middle range of Nubian variation (Mukherjee et al., 1955) and by Crichton’s (1966) views that Nubian series are the most appropriate comparison series of a Negroid people in studies examining Egyptian variation in its African context Ethnic Nubians, called Nehesy by the ancient Egyptians, vary in their phenotype. However, Egyptians, even those with the stereotypically Negroid (Broad) phenotype, were not called Nehesy, reinforcing the idea that Nehesy was an ethno-geographic, not “racial” term (Drake, 1987). The pharaoh who forbade the northern migration of riverine Nubians into Egypt was of an obviously “Negroid dynasty (Yurco, 1989), known to have southern origins.
Hiernaux (1975) has accounted for variation in Africa using a nonracial approach; he does not specifically address the northern Nile Valley in great detail, but his concepts, based on micro-evolutionary principles (adaptation, drift, selection), are applicable in this region in the light of recent archaeological data. For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans, narrow faces and noses (versus broad “Negro” ones) do not usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or “Europoid“ (Caucasian) genes, called Hamitic as once taught, but represent indigenous variation, either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift (Hiernaux, 1975).
Hiernaux calls this morphology “Elongated African.” Some of the neolithic Saharans of tropical African affinity (Sutton, 1974; Hiernaux, 1975; after Chamla, 1968) who emigrated to the Nile Valley (Hassan, 1988) might be an example. The view that “elongated” characteristics are indigenous and equally tropical African (“Black) for specific archaeological series and peoples is supported by Gabel (19661, Hiernaux (1975), and Rightmire (1975a,b).
The range of variation, “Broad” (stereotypical “Negro”) to Elongated, can be subsumed within a single unit designated Africoid, thereby acknowledging the wider affinities and multiple tropical microadaptive strategies, as well as drift." - Keita
^^People often like to willfully ignore the fact that ancient Egyptian crania, even in Upper Egypt, were by no means homogenous. They comprise both "broad" and "elongated" types, as Keita and others have consistently demonstrated; Keita, in particular, has shown this through his comparison of Upper Egyptian crania with the Kerma series, and those further south in Africa.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Yes, I agree that Africans( "blacks") have the greatest phenotypical diversity of all peoples, and that many of them, because of this extreme diversity and , do not comply to the "Forest Negro" stereotype. But in terms of Keita's work we HAVE to take into account Northern Egypt's LOCATION, it's right next to the Middle East for Christ sake, and you're telling me there was NO migration from that area?! With the coming of the Hyksos Semites would come into the delta with the force of an unbridled flood! In short, the reason that Northern egyptian crania are different (but not unrelated) from their southern counterparts in some characteristics is due mostly to mixing (even if small-scale) with Near Easterners, and the rest to genetic drift. Keita said it himself! But Egyptian crania overall, as my man Keita says, group with Africans (esp. Sudanese and Saharan)instead of their soon to be conquerors . So I still stand, Lower Egyptians were mulattoes . But we all know in America half-black, well, damnit, means black. Sadly that rule was reversed with Coon-era anthropology. Ah whitey and their hypocritical racial ideologies ):
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
Yes, I agree that Africans( "blacks") have the greatest phenotypical diversity of all peoples, and that many of them, because of this extreme diversity and , do not comply to the "Forest Negro" stereotype.
Good; I hope you bookmark this remark, when you make comments in the future, and for reasons you shall soon see...
quote:Obelisk_18:
But in terms of Keita's work we HAVE to take into account Northern Egypt's LOCATION, it's right next to the Middle East for Christ sake, and you're telling me there was NO migration from that area?!
Who are you referring to, and where is the citation that tells you what you are claiming to be told? Produce this citation quick!
quote:Obelisk_18:
With the coming of the Hyksos Semites would come into the delta with the force of an unbridled flood! In short, the reason that Northern egyptian crania are different (but not unrelated) from their southern counterparts in some characteristics is due mostly to mixing (even if small-scale) with Near Easterners, and the rest to genetic drift. Keita said it himself!
Where did Keita say the crania found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners"?
quote:Obelisk_18:
But Egyptian crania overall, as my man Keita says, group with Africans (esp. Sudanese and Saharan)instead of their soon to be conquerors . So I still stand, Lower Egyptians were mulattoes .
...and I will stand firm to tell you that, your usage of "mulattoes" is intellectually bankrupt. What do you mean by this; "racial purity" perhaps?
quote:Obelisk_18:
But we all know in America half-black, well, damnit, means black. Sadly that rule was reversed with Coon-era anthropology. Ah whitey and their hypocritical racial ideologies
What is said in America or elsewhere outside the realm of science, has no bearings on the "scientific" discourse of this topic, as I intended when I opened it.
Moving on...
Classic Greek scholars described Egyptians as "melanoderms" in their own terms. But even the ancient Egyptians in many occasions depicted themselves much darker than folks from southwest Asia and Europe. Now, we know from skeletal remains, that ancient Egyptian specimens, particularly from Upper Egypt, were described as 'tropical body plans'. This naturally implies the same for skin tone, if skin were attached to the bones. However, if this were not enough, given that we were not there in dynastic Egypt, and for those, who don't care to take classical Greek scholars at their word, this is how the Kemetians depicted themselves then...
All depictions, show women and men working both 'indoors' and 'outdoors'.
...at least, from what we can tell from these images is that, at around this period, Egyptians were generally dark skin folks. But how do we know that this is very likely the case? Well, even modern studies show that, despite much influx from northern areas throughout history, Egyptians are still relatively dark skin folks. See, for instance...
...from this, it is perhaps safe to say that, Nile Valley populations were even more darker than they were prior to histories of gene flow with people from Northern Eurasia.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Where did Keita say the crania found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners"? Um, Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa and its successor study Further Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa cha-chi? and I didn't say Near Easterners made up the entire population of Lower Egypt, I just said they mixed with the indigenous population, thus making them somewhat different, cranio-facially, from their southern counterparts, there's also genetic drift, as it occurs with all populations .
and I will stand firm to tell you that, your usage of "mulattoes" is intellectually bankrupt. What do you mean by this; "racial purity" perhaps? Yes, cha-chi, I meant "racial purity", as in having 100 percent of your DNA indicating descent from Group X or Group Y. Upper egyptians were craniofacially and genetically indistinct from their sudanese counterparts, while Lower Egyptians, descended from migrating upper egyptians (that seems to be the direction the neolithic, as well as civilization, took in egypt, south to north babe ) also mixed with near easterners and europeans, due to its proximity to the two areas. That simple, baby.
What is said in America or elsewhere outside the realm of science, has no bearings on the "scientific" discourse of this topic, as I intended when I opened it. Moving on... I gotta agree.
Classic Greek scholars described Egyptians as "melanoderms" in their own terms. But even the ancient Egyptians in many occasions depicted themselves much darker that folks from southwest Asia and Europe. Now, we know from skeletal remains, that ancient Egyptian specimens, particularly from Upper Egypt, were described as 'tropical body plans'. This naturally implies the same for skin tone, if skin were attached to the bones. However, if this were not enough, given that we were not there in dynastic Egypt, and for those, who don't care to take classical Greek scholars to their word, this is how the Kemetians themselves depicted themselves then... Of course, why would the egyptians make false representations of themselves?! The Africanity of Egypt is also confirmed through portraiture, notice how the eurocentrists get silent whenever we bring up a portrait of Menes or Djoser, and Khufu instead of, how Keita put it " portraits of late dynastic greek/roman conquerors". You see supercar I actually READ the studies I'm referring to.
All depictions, show women and men working both 'indoors' and 'outdoors'.
...at least, from what we can tell from these images, is that, at around this period, Egyptians were generally dark skin folks. But how do we know that this is very likely the case? Well, even modern studies show that, despite much influx from northern areas throughout history, Egyptians are still relatively dark skin folks. See, for instance...
... from this, it is perhaps safe to say that, Nile Valley populations were even more darker than they were prior to histories of gene flow with people from the Northern Eurasia. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^Of course there were migrations into the Delta from the Levant during historical times by example of the Hyksos, but what has this got to do with the the topic of this thread-- that of coastal northern African populations who existed since predynatic times and have nothing to do with migrations from the Near East??
Both Supe and I have addressed what Keita meant by "intermediate" position in craniofacial anatomy more than once, but apparently you cannot understand or refuse to understand but rather go with the "mixed-race" "mulatto" politically-incorrect political appeasement.
Are you aware that there is evidence of prehistoric migrations from Egypt (Africa) and into the Levant and Mesopotamia and even the Aegean including Greece as well as the rest of southern Europe-- all of which predate Levantine immigrations into Egypt??
Posted by Africa (Member # 12142) on :
quote:btw now that we are on this, i've noticed here in sweden when the police is after a middle-eastern suspect (which they always are) they never say "middle eastern appearence" they always say "the man has a southern european appearence", always, even though southern europeans in sweden are very few, while 70 percent of immigrants here a from the middle east and people know exactly who they mean.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Of course there were migrations into the Delta from the Levant during historical times by example of the Hyksos, but what has this got to do with the the topic of this thread-- that of coastal northern African populations who existed since predynatic times and have nothing to do with migrations from the Near East?? So you're saying non-blacks present in the intermediate coastal patterns are native to Africa? If lower "coastal" egyptians are as black as their southern civilizing brethren, how come they display different craniometric trends?
Both Supe and I have addressed what Keita meant by "intermediate" position in craniofacial anatomy more than once, but apparently you cannot understand or refuse to understand but rather go with the "mixed-race" "mulatto" politically-incorrect political appeasement. Politically incorrect appeasement? excuse me? I'm simply stating the facts regarding the "racial" make-up of dynastic lower egypt, babe .
Are you aware that there is evidence of prehistoric migrations from Egypt (Africa) and into the Levant and Mesopotamia and even the Aegean including Greece as well as the rest of southern Europe-- all of which predate Levantine immigrations into Egypt?? Ah, the Natufians, who led to the first establishment of agriculture? Of course. I know the history of my people, true name of Thoth Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: right next to the Middle East for Christ sake, and you're telling me there was NO migration from that area?!
The Middle East is right next to Africa for Christ sake, are you telling me there was NO migration from Africa into the Middle-East?
Southern Europe is right next to Africa for Christ sake. Are you saying there was no migration from Africa to Southern-Europe?
Southern Europe is right next to the Middle East for Christ sake. are you saying that there was no migration from the Middle East to Europe.
It's bad form to spell the obvious out like we're talking to children, but the lack of comprehension leaves one with little choice.
Are Rome and Greece' European authenticty predicated on the unreasonable qualifier of demonstrating no migrations into Europe by any non European people?
No.
Is Mesopotamia's "middle eastern" [mid-east itself as a geopolitical reference is *a joke* and certain indication that the person using the term is not thinking for himself but merely parroting his European mind-lord] authenticity predicated on no migrations from Africa, from Europe, from India, from East Asia?
No.
Then why is it necessary to show that there be absolutely no migrations of non-Africans into the Nile Valley in order to discuss Nile Valley civilisation as authentically African?
The answer is, it isn't. Period.
Now i've spelt out in several pedantic paragraphs what should really be a one sentense response:
The question was rhetorical, and a poorly disguised strawman argument, which Supercar correctly identified and dismissed:
quote:Supercar: Who are you referring to, and where is the citation that tells you what you are claiming to be told? Produce this citation quick!
Um, two points cha-chi, I NEVER said there were no migrations from out of Africa, you idiots have been taking my argument (the racial make-up of Lower Egyptians) out of context. I had a factually supported position, I defended it like Stalingrad, and all hell breaks loose o:. Two, when have I EVER denied the complete Africanity of Ancient Egypt? When have I ever denied the facts?!
Posted by Africa (Member # 12142) on :
I'm from the ATL, now what exactly are you getting to?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
quote:Supercar:
Where did Keita say the crania found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners"?
Um, Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa and its successor study Further Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa cha-chi? and I didn't say Near Easterners made up the entire population of Lower Egypt, I just said they mixed with the indigenous population, thus making them somewhat different, cranio-facially, from their southern counterparts, there's also genetic drift, as it occurs with all populations .
Apparently, you did not understand the question the first time around, so I'll clarify:
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
quote:Obelisk_18:
quote:Supercar:
and I will stand firm to tell you that, your usage of "mulattoes" is intellectually bankrupt. What do you mean by this; "racial purity" perhaps?
Yes, cha-chi, I meant "racial purity", as in having 100 percent of your DNA indicating descent from Group X or Group Y.
Well, cha-chi, then your claim of "racial purity" is intellectually bankrupt from biological reality standpoint.
quote:Obelisk_18:
Upper egyptians were craniofacially and genetically indistinct from their sudanese counterparts, while Lower Egyptians, descended from migrating upper egyptians (that seems to be the direction the neolithic, as well as civilization, took in egypt, south to north babe ) also mixed with near easterners and europeans, due to its proximity to the two areas. That simple, baby.
LOL. You must be a chick, because no man writes the way you do. Anyway...
Every Keita post that has been cited herein seems to have gone over your head. But before I proceed, I need to know what you mean by "Sudanese" counterparts here, as it pertains to citations posted herein.
quote:Obelisk_18:
You see supercar I actually READ the studies I'm referring to.
This is questionable from what I've read from your posts thus far. But we will soon find out, when you address the questions I put forth.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: right next to the Middle East for Christ sake, and you're telling me there was NO migration from that area?!
The Middle East is right next to Africa for Christ sake, are you telling me there was NO migration from Africa into the Middle-East?
Southern Europe is right next to Africa for Christ sake. Are you saying there was no migration from Africa to Southern-Europe?
Southern Europe is right next to the Middle East for Christ sake. are you saying that there was no migration from the Middle East to Europe.
It's bad form to spell the obvious out like we're talking to children, but the lack of comprehension leaves one with little choice.
Are Rome and Greece' European authenticty predicated on the unreasonable qualifier of demonstrating no migrations into Europe by any non European people?
No.
Is Mesopotamia's "middle eastern" [mid-east itself as a geopolitical reference is *a joke* and certain indication that the person using the term is not thinking for himself but merely parroting his European mind-lord] authenticity predicated on no migrations from Africa, from Europe, from India, from East Asia?
No.
Then why is it necessary to show that there be absolutely no migrations of non-Africans into the Nile Valley in order to discuss Nile Valley civilisation as authentically African?
The answer is, it isn't. Period.
Now i've spelt out in several pedantic paragraphs what should really be a one sentense response:
The question was rhetorical, and a poorly disguised strawman argument, which Supercar correctly identified and dismissed:
quote:Supercar: Who are you referring to, and where is the citation that tells you what you are claiming to be told? Produce this citation quick!
Common sensical; but then, if only common sense was usually well, common sense. The pseudo-science non-starter of "racial purity" is clung onto as the special qualifier for authenticity of African complexes, while for the likes of ancient Greece and ancient complexes in the Levant, the question isn't supposed to even come up. The underlying reason here is obvious, for almost every advocate of such crack-science: There is no way Africans themselves could have been capable of creating authentically African complexes, without "outside" assistance. These advocates are no better than reactionary Eurocentric scholars of the 19th century, and they are not living intellectually in the present, in the face of a mountain of objective data to the contrary confronting them. The advocates may well deny this hidden agenda, but then, go ahead and pose the questions in the manner you just did, and see if you can get a coherent response.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Quite right. You must learn to walk before you can run.
Similarly one has to learn how to think - before one can think.
Not having done so - they ask nonsensical questions, then become predictably argumentative over the answers.
Their arguments are rooted in failure to understand either the answers or really....even their own questions.
Good effort in educating, alas no good deed goes unpunished.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:pseudo-science non-starter of "racial purity" is clung onto as the special qualifier for authenticity of African complexes, while for the likes of ancient Greece and ancient complexes in the Levant, the question isn't supposed to even come up.
Continuing to denote the obvious, in and effort to get people to think...since Nile Valley civilisation pre-dates European civilisation by several thousand years, isn't the logical, objective burdan of proof on the Europeans?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I meant "racial purity", as in having 100 percent of your DNA indicating descent from Group X or Group Y.
I'll ask you the question I asked Amr1.
Please produce a list of said 'racially pure' peoples.
Know that we expect you to either ignore the question because you can't answer it, which means you tacitly admit that your comments are nonsensical.
Or....you will yelp and irrelevant and probably bitter reply in effort to change the subject, while evading the question.
Prove us wrong and answer with a list of racially pure peoples. Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Jesus supercar and rasol, since when did I say that Asiatic/European migration was even a factor in the creation of Dynastic Egypt, in fact it was the reason the walls came tumbling down on the long enduring civilization . And X-Ras (Planet Asia)(a black man just like me) agrees with me on Lower Egypt, that it was less racially black than Upper Egypt due to migration, see his posts . Think before you speak, babe. BTW, calling people "babe" is a Dennis Miller type thing.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ boooo. even dennis miller thought that reply stunk.
just answer the questions.
if you can't answer, better off saying nothing.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
He/she hasn't yet, so you know what that means.
Btw, what part of the ATL do you live in? Perhaps I can meet you in person and see if you look smarter than you sound in this forum. LOL Just playing. Seriously though, where do you stay?
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Alright biotches, here's the citation from Keita's study: (the horse's mouth so to speak)
"Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and MIGRATION "
Got ya.
Oh and Djehuti, why do you want to know where I live in the ATL and meet me, you having bad luck with the fifteen year old girls on myspace? Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Alright biotches, here's the citation from Keita's study: (the horse's mouth so to speak)
LOL Looks like we touched a nerve. No need to get frustrated and curse.
quote:"Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and MIGRATION "
Yes, but did he say this migration was from outside of Africa?
quote:Got ya.
Nope, more like your own ignorance has got YOU. And Keita agrees as he said here:
The peopling of what is now the Egyptian Nile Valley, judging from archaeological and biological data, was apparently the result of a complex interaction between coastal northern Africans, “neolithic” Saharans, Nilotic hunters, and riverine proto-Nubians with some influence and migration from the Levant (Hassan, 1988). The major variability of early “Egyptians” is thus seen to have been mainly established in the proto-predynastic period by the settling of all of these peoples. No ongoing major mass movements of new groups into the valley are postulated between the early pre-dynastic and the latest dynastic period, with the possible exception of the Asiatic Hyksos.
I suggest you read the whole citation and not just the abstract! LOL
quote:Oh and Djehuti, why do you want to know where I live in the ATL and meet me, you having bad luck with the fifteen year old girls on myspace?
How predictable that you get so easily peeved and now try to mock me by questioning by sexuality. A classic immature act, or perhaps you are merely projecting your own frustrations (sexual and otherwise) on to me. Please don't Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
"Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and MIGRATION "
I see "northern Africa" and "migration", but what I don't see therein, is this:
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
Do you know the difference between the citation above, and the claim placed in the quotation marks in the request [yet to be responded to] above?
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
LOL Looks like we touched a nerve. No need to get frustrated and curse.
Hmm I thought biotches was a cleaner version of "bi**hes". Guess I was wrong.
quote:"Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and MIGRATION "
Yes, but did he say this migration was from outside of Africa?
quote:Got ya.
Nope, more like your own ignorance has got YOU. And Keita agrees as he said here:
The peopling of what is now the Egyptian Nile Valley, judging from archaeological and biological data, was apparently the result of a complex interaction between coastal northern Africans, “neolithic” Saharans, Nilotic hunters, and riverine proto-Nubians with some influence and migration from the Levant (Hassan, 1988). The major variability of early “Egyptians” is thus seen to have been mainly established in the proto-predynastic period by the settling of all of these peoples. No ongoing major mass movements of new groups into the valley are postulated between the early pre-dynastic and the latest dynastic period, with the possible exception of the Asiatic Hyksos.
I suggest you read the whole citation and not just the abstract! LOL
quote:Oh and Djehuti, why do you want to know where I live in the ATL and meet me, you having bad luck with the fifteen year old girls on myspace?
How predictable that you get so easily peeved and now try to mock me by questioning by sexuality. A classic immature act, or perhaps you are merely projecting your own frustrations (sexual and otherwise) on to me. Please don't
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
Hmm I thought biotches was a cleaner version of "bi**hes". Guess I was wrong.
Obelisk_18, how about being a man and addressing requests made of you; if you don't have answers, simply say so; all else, will not be tolerated, I can assure that.
So are you able to back up an earlier claim of yours, which was placed in the following request?...
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:
Looks like we touched a nerve. No need to get frustrated and curse. LOL
Hmm I thought biotches was a cleaner version of "bi**hes". Guess I was wrong.
quote:Yes, but did he say this migration was from outside of Africa? LOL
Nah, he said it was from Endor .
quote:Nope, more like your own ignorance has got YOU.
Maybe your lack of reading comprehension, eh?
The peopling of what is now the Egyptian Nile Valley, judging from archaeological and biological data, was apparently the result of a complex interaction between coastal northern Africans, “neolithic” Saharans, Nilotic hunters, and riverine proto-Nubians with some influence and migration from the Levant (Hassan, 1988). The major variability of early “Egyptians” is thus seen to have been mainly established in the proto-predynastic period by the settling of all of these peoples. No ongoing major mass movements of new groups into the valley are postulated between the early pre-dynastic and the latest dynastic period, with the possible exception of the Asiatic Hyksos.
quote:How predictable that you get so easily peeved and now try to mock me by questioning by sexuality. A classic immature act, or perhaps you are merely projecting your own frustrations (sexual and otherwise) on to me. Please don't
It was just a joke, cha-chi, lighten up . And me projecting? You're trying so hard to stab me with that verbal machete aren't ya? And I don't cyberstalk, sorry to disappoint you babe . Meeting some insecure pimpel faced snot-nosed adolescent at a Motel Six is not worth being cornered by Jahmal during my weekly shower.
Not denying the Africanity (both cultural and ethnic) of Ancient Egypt here, just making a truthful observation regarding the mixed ethnicity of its northern part. Peace.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Obelisk_18, how about being a man and addressing requests made of you; if you don't have answers, simply say so; all else, will not be tolerated, I can assure that..
So are you able to back up an earlier claim of yours, which was placed in the following request?...
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
It's in the citation that Djehuti displayed to me, and look! I bolded the quote boys and girls!!! I saw that my point on Lower Egyptians was correct by inference, which you seem to be poor at, word of advice, don't take the LSAT .
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Obelisk_18, how about being a man and addressing requests made of you; if you don't have answers, simply say so; all else, will not be tolerated, I can assure that..
So are you able to back up an earlier claim of yours, which was placed in the following request?...
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
It's in the citation that Djehuti displayed to me, and look! I bolded the quote boys and girls!!! I saw that my point on Lower Egyptians was correct by inference, which you seem to be poor at, word of advice, don't take the LSAT
I am not sure which side of the planet you came from, but here in the real world, attributing a claim to someone else other than yourself, is called either "citing" the person, or "putting words into that some one else's mouth". Now, you've attributed the following, in quotation marks, to Keita, and hence I requested...
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
^^If Keita did indeed say this, why are you having such a hard time producing the said citation? I've gone through everything posted herein, and I have yet to come across such claim from Keita. If this, as you now claim, is your "inference", but at the same time, cannot be backed by a "citation" from Keita, how then can you sit there and claim that you are good at "inferring", while others who are capable of backing up their claims with actual 'citations' from the source, are bad at doing it? LOL.
My advice is, learn to "read" first, before you take it upon yourself to advice others on "LSAT".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Maybe your lack of reading comprehension, eh?
LMAO Reading comprehension indeed, but it is YOU who lacks it!
The peopling of what is now the Egyptian Nile Valley, judging from archaeological and biological data, was apparently the result of a complex interaction between coastal northern Africans, “neolithic” Saharans, Nilotic hunters, and riverine proto-Nubians with some influence and migration from the Levant (Hassan, 1988)...
^Of course Keita spoke of the peopling of the Egypt in it's ancient history in general. He never said that influence and migration from the Levant were part of the prehistoric founding population or that of the coastal Northern population whom he distinguishes from the Levant influence!
The major variability of early “Egyptians” is thus seen to have been mainly established in the proto-predynastic period by the settling of all of these peoples. No ongoing major mass movements of new groups into the valley are postulated between the early pre-dynastic and the latest dynastic period, with the possible exception of the Asiatic Hyksos.
^LOL The Hyksos didn't not appear until the end of the Middle Kingdom. Sorry but nowhere does he say Levant influence, let alone the Hyksos presence had anything to do with the morphology of the coastal northern population!!
quote:It was just a joke, cha-chi, lighten up . And me projecting? You're trying so hard to stab me with that verbal machete aren't ya? And I don't cyberstalk, sorry to disappoint you babe . Meeting some insecure pimpel faced snot-nosed adolescent at a Motel Six is not worth being cornered by Jahmal during my weekly shower.
LOL Look who needs to lighten up! Just admit that you know not what you talk about. And please don't call me 'babe' unless you are female which you sound to be, and a very annoying one at that. Don't get mad at me cuz can't get a man in your life.
quote:Not denying the Africanity (both cultural and ethnic) of Ancient Egypt here, just making a truthful observation regarding the mixed ethnicity of its northern part. Peace.
Nope. As pointed out above. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Now expect the child to make either no response or no response that makes sense and instead get more foolish banter about online sexual encounters or the like (projecting). Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Obelisk_18, name one researcher who has actually studied "predynastic Northern" Egyptian remains. Give us the specifics of these studies, because apparently the more recent researchers, like Keita, haven't been able to get their hands on such specimens, as to adjudge morphological trends therein.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Well sorry to disappoint you Djehuti but I'm not here to make non-sensical insults. Anyways, Supercar you're right, Keita never studied predynastic northern egyptian remains, he studied the material only from Howells database and series studied by his mentor Larry Angel, and neither of these contained predynastic lower egyptians. only late dynastic "E" series and 9th dynasty Sedment series. Perhaps I misunderstood Keita's "northern coastal" pattern to pertain to pre- dynastic lower egyptians, when in fact it pertained to late dynastic ones, far after the Hyksos and other semitic/european incursions into the area affected the "racial affinities" of the local population. I concede .
P.S. Djehuti I'm a brotha .
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
Well sorry to disappoint you Djehuti but I'm not here to make non-sensical insults. Anyways, Supercar you're right, Keita never studied predynastic northern egyptian remains, he studied the material only from Howells database and series studied by his mentor Larry Angel, and neither of these contained predynastic lower egyptians. only late dynastic "E" series and 9th dynasty Sedment series. Perhaps I misunderstood Keita's "northern coastal" pattern to pertain to pre- dynastic lower egyptians, when in fact it pertained to late dynastic ones, far after the Hyksos and other semitic/european incursions into the area affected the "racial affinities" of the local population. I concede
Here is something that you might find instructive:
Another example of anti-“Negro” bias is given in Briggs (1955), who reports a writer who calls a “Negro” Neolithic Fayum (northern Egyptian) skull, the remains of a slave; why was it not the skull of a native free Fayumian?
The negative bias is also evident in the writings of Nott and Gliddon (1854), who clearly noted an iconographic distinction between the average Egyptian and European (even Greek) phenotype. Polygenists Nott and Gliddon use the term “Negroid” repeatedly to describe the early Old Kingdom Egyptians but take great effort to indicate that these Negroids have no relationship to “true Negroes,” which to them were a very restricted taxon with a single, monotypic member and distinct origin. - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
I suggest you read Frank L. Williams et al.'s Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation, 2005. There are notable variations within specimens from a single geographical location, which is why people like Keita speak in terms of "trends"...
We argue that Fordisc 2.0, encapsulating the major skeletal markers and statistical techniques in forensic anthropology, offers little information with regard to the biological affinity of Meroitic Nubians. Given the claims of the program, we predicted that the Nubian population would cluster as a single entity and that the cluster would reflect an affinity to Late Period Dynastic Egyptians or possibly to other African continental populations.
The program failed both tests. We suggest that skeletal specimens or samples cannot be accurately classified by geography or by racial affinity because of
(1) the wide variation in crania of the known series that crosscuts geographic populations (polymorphism),
(2)the clinal pattern of human variation,
(3)cultural and environmental factors. Even a presumably homogeneous population such as the Meroitic Nubians show extensive variation that **preclude its classification as a geographical group**
^by Frank L. Williams et al., 2005.
As I have pointed out, even the Upper Egyptian crania were by no means homogenous in phenotype, but when many of these researchers are studying crania, they tend to look for trends by way of frequency of certain "traits", and more often than not, these include "stereotyped" features. I've already demonstrated why Brace described "Somali" crania as having a "hint" of sub-Saharan, when we in fact know, that Somalis are "sub-Saharan" Africans, LOL.
These frequency of "stereotyped" traits in "Upper Egyptian" crania outnumbered the ones in the northern Egypt, which is why it is claimed that there are distinct "trends" in the pooled samples. This doesn't mean that such traits didn't exist in the northern Egyptian samples, but just that, not as much as those in the more southern samples. Hence, it is no surprise that we come across claims like...
The Nagada and Kerma series are so similar that they are barely indistinguishable in the territorial maps; they subsume the first dynasty series from Abydos. The Sedment and “E” series are the most distinct of the Nile Valley series. The European series stands in notable isolation by centroid score from the African series - Keita, Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa.
or even...
The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
Similarly, you'll find cranio-metric trends in the Palestinian samples that Keita studied, interesting, just as Brace's study of ancient and modern European crania was revealing.
I suspect, given references provided by Keita [as the example I just provided], that some past researchers proclaimed to have studied predynastic Northern Egyptian crania, but the question is, whatever then happened to these specimens?
Ps - Ancient Egyptian artists [and classical Greek scholars], who were apparently alive when they undertook these projects, have left us vivid images of what their populations looked like, as exemplified in the aforementioned figurines, yet STILL there are people out there, who attempt to make them [ancient Egyptians] out to be "mysterious" beings.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Ah, thank you super, yes I have read the study "Forensic Misclassification of Nubian crania" which really proves how scientifically futile the term "race" is, because all of the world's phenotypical diversity is contained (because it originated) within my race. It seems we're on good terms now, supercar .
P.S. I hope when you say people refer to "mysterious being" I hope you're not talking about crackpots who think aliens built the pyramids .
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
P.S. I hope when you say people refer to "mysterious being" I hope you're not talking about crackpots who think aliens built the pyramids
Actually, I meant people who try to use non-starter issues of "racial purity" or 'migration' to the Nile Valley, as a qualifier of the 'authenticity' of both the biological and cultural base of the Nile Valley populations as "Africans". Doing so, is an attempt to "mystify" an issue that doesn't need to be, based on examination of the abundant available objective material.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
And one more question, supercar. Don't you find it strange that the Late Dynastic Gizeh "E" series, clusters with either europeans or west africans depending on the method? Should I take this to indicate a mixed population in this sample, which is not all unreasonable given the known non african immigrations (the Hyksos, of course) that had occured by then. Or what?
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
No, because during the Late Dyanstic period is when Greek,Carian,Phonecian and Syrians began to settle in Giza. Most of these populations were welcomed by the pharaoh Amasis around the 26th dyansty.
Herodotus even mentions places in Giza known as the Tyrian wall and Carian camp.
Most of these immigrants came into northern Egypt intermarrying with local women. Even some parts of Middle Egypt already had foreign settlements around this time period.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:And one more question, supercar. Don't you find it strange that the Late Dynastic Gizeh "E" series, clusters with either europeans or west africans depending on the method?
We've gone over the limitations of Giza E series before...
Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.
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. Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: No, because during the Late Dyanstic period is when Greek,Carian,Phonecian and Syrians began to settle in Giza. Most of these populations were welcomed by the pharaoh Amasis around the 26th dyansty.
Herodotus even mentions places in Giza known as the Tyrian wall and Carian camp.
Most of these immigrants came into northern Egypt intermarrying with local women. Even some parts of Middle Egypt already had foreign settlements around this time period.
Ah, the great mongrelization of Egypt, it would the reason for the downfall of the great civilization. Don't mean to sound like Chancellor Williams here, but it's the truth . Egypt had to turn back on its traditional attitude of xenophobia.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I wouldn't go that far, however one of the many perverted ideas regarding Europe is that somehow mixture of non-african(?) Egyptians with the dreaded 'negroids' brought the civlisation down.
It is difficult to fathom that even a racist scholar can "honestly" maintain this self-delusion... given that the historical record makes it clear that the invasion of native Nile Valley civilisation by Asiatic and finally Europeans - Syrian, Arab, Roman and Greek literally brought and end to dynastic Kemet.
The Arabs, like Romans and Greeks could not continue ie - develop - Egyptian civilisation for the same reason that couldn not do so in "Nubia".
European and SouthWest Asians are the product finally of a fundamentally different - almost diametrically opposed set of cultural values.
Nile Valley civilisation was African, *not Eurasian*.
The conquest of the Nile Valley by Europe and Asia and the destruction of "Ancient Egypt and Nubia" - are one and the same phenomenon.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Couldn't agree more.
And again, the Hyksos appeared in Egypt during the 2nd Intermediate period which took place after the Middle Kingdom! So Hyksos have nothing to do with Giza of the early Old Kingdom which built the Pyramids.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Good point Rasol, on the contrary it seems there had to be a "southern people to reanimate Egypt" as Petrie put it, to get the country rolling again . And do you know that there were so many asiatics imported as slaves that the egyptian name for them "Aamu" became synonymous with "slave" during the Middle Kingdom?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Aamu is a synonym for servant yes.
Thousands of years later - Slav - and ethnic reference to certain European peoples - Russians, Poles, and some Greeks - essentially equivelant to Bantu in and African context, became synonymous with forced servitude - ie slavery.
This is why I laugh when Eurocentrics try to make slave synomous with Black Africans.
It's a European word for a European people captured and forced into 'slavery' principally by other Europeans, but also by East Asians [mongols], SouthWest Asians [Arabs] and Africans [moors]. And the similarity and indeed common history of the two terms is still irksome to some slavic people.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Good point Rasol, on the contrary it seems there had to be a "southern people to reanimate Egypt" as Petrie put it, to get the country rolling again . And do you know that there were so many asiatics imported as slaves that the egyptian name for them "Aamu" became synonymous with "slave" during the Middle Kingdom?
Even though most slaves in Egypt were Asiatics, it must be understood that the slave population in Egypt was not very great since Egypt was not a society dependent on slaves, unlike the Greeks.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Rasol said:
quote:^ I wouldn't go that far, however one of the many perverted ideas regarding Europe is that somehow mixture of non-african(?) Egyptians with the dreaded 'negroids' brought the civlisation down.
It is difficult to fathom that even a racist scholar can "honestly" maintain this self-delusion... given that the historical record makes it clear that the invasion of native Nile Valley civilisation by Asiatic and finally Europeans - Syrian, Arab, Roman and Greek literally brought and end to dynastic Kemet.
The Arabs, like Romans and Greeks could not continue ie - develop - Egyptian civilisation for the same reason that couldn not do so in "Nubia".
European and SouthWest Asians are the product finally of a fundamentally different - almost diametrically opposed set of cultural values.
Nile Valley civilisation was African, *not Eurasian*.
The conquest of the Nile Valley by Europe and Asia and the destruction of "Ancient Egypt and Nubia" - are one and the same phenomenon
I have to disagree with the following assertion that all foreigners brought down ancient Egyptian civlization. Many foreigners simply assimilated ancient Egyptian culture in their own. This was the case with the Persians and Greeks who did very little to alter the ancient Egyptian culture.
Only untill Roman occupation of Egypt do we see a dramatic change with limitation upon the priesthood and heavy taxiation.
When the Arabs arrived in Egypt in 640 A.D. only vestiages of ancient Egyptian culture continued to exist mainly within the peasanty much untill the preasant day. Egypt was then predominately Christians[according to most historians] and under the burden of opression of the Byzantine. Not much resistance was put up by the local Egyptian population and the Arabs then became the rulers of Egypt from Mecca by the Islamic caliph.
Just to note that only about 20,000 Arabs in all came with Amr Ibn Alas' and settled into Al Fustat located not far from modern Cairo. Even within Fustat the local language continued to be spoken untill it was gradually replaced around the 700's A.D.
During the Dyanstic era ancient Egyptians themselves had a tedency to bring captives of war and assimilate them into their soceity. Foreigners came and settled as merchants,economic immigrants and mercenaries. We see this with the case of the Libyans of the 21st and 22nd dyansties.
In the Egyptology community there is still debate about wheather the Hykos either came through peaceful immigration or by forceful invasion.
Obelix said:
quote:Ah, the great mongrelization of Egypt, it would the reason for the downfall of the great civilization. Don't mean to sound like Chancellor Williams here, but it's the truth. Egypt had to turn back on its traditional attitude of xenophobia
People who believe in this hypothesis have to provide documented evidence that such events caused the downfall of ancient Egypt.
Other factors were probably a more important fact in the decline of ancient Egypt. Most foreigners that came into Egypt usually assimilating into the fabric of ancient Egyptian without much disruption.
Most of the attitudes towards foreigners come primarily from the elites in ancient Egyptian soceity. We don't really know much of how the commoner felt towards foreigners or if they carried the same prejustices.
During the Greco-Roman era we do have instances of hostilities between Greek and Egyptians but also cases of intermarriage as seen by the double Greek and Egyptian names in families.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Egypt was then predominately Christians
Did the Greeks or the Romans bring Christianity to Egypt?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Getting back to the main topic,
recalling...
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
I suspect, given references provided by Keita [as the example I just provided], that some past researchers proclaimed to have studied predynastic Northern Egyptian crania, but the question is, whatever then happened to these specimens?
Don't know the credibility of the basis on which it was made, but I found this piece, while not entirely new to me in terms of the "scarcity" of specimens from the lowermost Nile Valley regions, which talks of "availability" nonetheless...
Analysis of Skeletal Remains, Lower Egypt
Burials containing preserved bodies have been found in a number of Lower Egyptian sites, but these have not been analysed. Analysis of the human remains would give vital information about the physical characteristics of the Neolithic Egyptians of Lower Egypt, together with details about health, medical details, and lifestyle. It is possible that analysis could also result in information about the genetic relationship of Lower Egyptian communities with Near Eastern, Upper Egyptian and other populations. Again, this has been relegated to a low priority position due to the fragmentary nature of the remains surviving in museums, and the fact that provenances have often been poorly recorded, or have become jumbled in storage The Source
^^Goes back to the question I posed, with regards to "proclamations" suggestive of cranial studies on "pre-dynastic" Lower Egypt crania.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
And one more question, supercar. Don't you find it strange that the Late Dynastic Gizeh "E" series, clusters with either europeans or west africans depending on the method? Should I take this to indicate a mixed population in this sample, which is not all unreasonable given the known non african immigrations (the Hyksos, of course) that had occured by then. Or what?
Ausar and Rasol's responses to this were on target. And yes, it reflects the notion that foreign groups were "mixed" with the in situ population of the Nile Valley.
Now, given that "sheep" domestication, along with some material items found in the Nile Valley, it has been hypothesized that southwest Asian groups had made their way into the Lower Nile Valley in the pre-dynastic period. Not unreasonable, right? However, I get the impression at times, from commentary along those lines, that "mass" movement of populations from the said region into the Nile had occurred, perhaps to the point of invoking the idea that these elements may have been dominant in that region, during the early 'wholesale' farming era in the lower Nile valley region. In this respect, Keita raised an interesting issue of linguistics.
If we were to assume any potential "mass" movement of populations from southwest Asia, wouldn't this then have involved flow of language from the same region? One would assume so. Could these have then been either well established or fully developed "Near Eastern" versions of Afrasan, or else, proto-Afrasan? Well, the former would imply a relatively well established "Near Eastern" group, while the latter would imply relatively new groups in southwest Asia. Naturally, the latter scenario would likely involve more back flow of African specific mrca lineages, than the former scenario. Now, going back to the issue of language; the former would reasonably imply some loan words for various 'imports' [both organic and material] from southwest Asia, say for example, domesticates involving animals such as "sheep", given their already well-established "Semitic" languages. If a loan word was perhaps used at the time of import, then is it safe to assume the loan words were eventually lost? Could such be possible across the board for all loan words for imports? This would imply language replacement of any such 'dominant' group; potentially language from inner Africa, i.e. a well-established Egyptic language? Another matter to be viewed herein, is the point that socio-economic development in the Upper Nile Valley was autonomous from the Lowermost Nile Valley, even if there were potentially some shared traits from common 'origins' or through contact between inhabitants of the region, of which we do have records.
Some of the questions raised above, may be answered shortly: relevant reading from Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005:
“Later there is some movement into Africa after the domestication of plants and Ovacaprines, which happened in the Near East nearly 2000 years before it occurred in Egypt (Hassan 1988, Wetterstrom 1993). Early Neolithic levels in northern Egypt contain the Levantine domesticates, and show some influence in material culture as well (Kobusiewicz 1992). Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).
This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000). (Also some of those emigrating may have been carrying Haplotype V, descendents of earlier migrants from the Nile valley, given the postulated “Mesolithic” time of the M35 lineage emigration). It is more probable that the current VII and VIII frequencies, greatest in northern Egypt, reflect in the main (but not solely) movements during the Islamic period (Nebel et al. 2002), when some deliberate settlement of Arab tribes was done in Africa, and the effects of polygamy. There must also have been some impact of Near Easterners who settled in the delta at various times in ancient Egypt (Gardiner 1961). More recent movements, in the last two centuries, must not be forgotten in this assessment.
Hypotheses that bring Afroasiatic from Asia or Europe with agriculture are not parsimonious (Ehret, personal communication). The Nostratic hypothesis that proffers this view has largely been modified and abandoned; most Nostraticists now see Afroasiatic as a sister of Nostratic and not a daughter (Ruhlen 1991). The common parent to these would reach back into a time not generally believed to be validly accessible to standard linguistic methods (Nichols 1997), although there is dissent on this point.
The distribution and high prevalence of Haplotype V (and less so of XI, Nile Valley primarily), and Afroasiatic speakers in Africa correspond with geography of the Horn-supra-Saharan arc. This is suggestive. The spread of the language phylum and genes may illustrate a case of kin-structured migration (Fix 1999), with founder-effect in some instances (e.g., high frequency of V in Moroccan Berbers). In the southern Nile valley V (and XI) might have been established with early Afroasiatic speakers, whose reconstructed vocabulary on available evidence suggests that they were hunters and intensive plant users, not food produces (see Ehret, 1988, 2000, for a discussion of cultural reconstruction from language, and Ehret 1984).”
To be continued!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Did the Greeks or the Romans bring Christianity to Egypt?
No, Christianity was introduced to Egypt by the apostle Mark and his followers. The Greeks and Romans merely reinforced Christianity in Egypt.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Continued! Keita and Boyce, on the peopling of the Nile Valley…
“Archeological data, or the absence of it, have been interpreted as suggesting a population hiatus in the settlement of the Nile Valley between Epipaleolithic and the Neolithic/predynastic, but this apparent lack could be due to material now being covered over by the Nile (see Connor and Marks 1986, Midant-Reynes 2000, for a discussion). Analogous to events in the Atacama Desert in Chile (Nunez et al. 2002), a moister more inhabitable eastern Sahara gained more human population in the late Pleistocene-early Holocene (Wendorf and Schild 1980, Hassan 1988, Wndorf and Schild 2001). If the hiatus was real then perhaps many Nile populations became Saharan.
Later, stimulated by mid-Holocene droughts, migration from the Sahara contributed population to the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988, Kobusiewicz 1992, Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001); the predynastic of upper Egypt and later Neolithic in lower Egypt show clear Saharan affinities. A striking increase e of pastoralists’ hearths are found in the Nile valley dating to between 5000-4000 BCE (Hassan 1988). Saharan Nilo-Saharan speakers may have been initial domesticators of African cattle found in the Sahara (see Ehret 2000, Wendorf et. Al. 1987). Hence there was a Saharan “Neolithic” with evidence for domesticated cattle before they appear in the Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 2001). If modern data can be used, there is no reason to think that the peoples drawn into the Sahara in the earlier periods were likely to have been biologically or linguistically uniform.
…A dynamic diachronic interaction consisting of the fusion, fissioning, and perhaps “extinction” of populations, with a decrease in overall numbers as the environment eroded, can easily be envisioned in the heterogenous landscape of the eastern Saharan expanse, with its oases and Wadis, that formed a reticulated pattern of habitats. This fragile and changing region with the Nile Valley in the early to mid-Holocene can be further envisioned as holding a population whose subdivisions maintained some distinctiveness, but did exchange genes. Groups would have been distributed in settlements based on resources, but likely had contacts based on artifact variation (Wendorf and Schild 2001). Similar pottery can be found over extensive areas. Transhumance between the Nile valley and the Sahara would have provided east-west contact, even before the later migration largely emptied parts of the eastern Sahara. Early speakers of Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic apparently interacted based on the evidence of loan words (Ehret, personal communication). Nilo-Saharan’s current range is roughly congruent with the so-called Saharo-Sudanese or Aqualithic culture associated with the less arid period (Wendorf and Schild 1980), and therefore cannot be seen as intrusive. Its speakers are found from the Nile to the Niger rivers in the Sahara and Sahel, and south into Kenya. The eastern Sahara was likely a micro--evolutionary processor and pump of populations, who may have developed various specific sociocultural (and linguistic) identities, but were genealogically “mixed” in terms of origins.
These identities may have further crystallized on the Nile, or fused with those of resident populations that were already differentiated. The genetic profile of the Nile Valley via the fusion of the Saharans and the indigenous peoples were likely established in the main long before the Middle Kingdom…
…Hoffman (1982) noted cattle burials in Hierakonpolis, the most important of predynastic upper Egyptian cities in the later predynastic. This custom might reflect Nubian cultural impact, a common cultural background, or the presence of Nubians.
There was some cultural and economic bases for all levels of social intercourse, as well as geographical proximity. There was some shared iconography in the kingdoms that emerged in Nubia and upper Egypt around 3300 BCE (Williams 1986). Although disputed, there is evidence that Nubia may have even militarily engaged upper Egypt before Dynasty I, and contributed leadership in the unification of Egypt (Williams 1986). The point of reviewing these data is to illustrate that evidence suggests a basis for social interaction, and gene exchange.
There is a caveat for Lower Egypt. If Neolithic/predynastic northern Egyptian populations were characterized at one time by higher frequencies of VII and VIII (from Near Eastern migration), then immigration from Saharan souces could have brought more V and XI in the later northern Neolithic. It should further be noted that the ancient Egyptians interpreted their unifying king, Narmer (either the last of Dynasty 0, or the first Dynasty I), as having been upper Egyptian and moving from south to north with victorious armies (Gardiner 1961, Wilkinson 1999). However, this may only be the heraldic “fixation” of an achieved political and cultural status quo (Hassan 1988), with little or no actual troup/population movements. Nevertheless, it is upper Egyptian (predynastic) culture that comes to dominate the country and emerges as the basis of dynastic cilization. Northern graves over the latter part of the predynastic do become like those in the south (see Bard 1994); some emigration to the north may have occurred - of people as well as ideas.
Interestingly, there is evidence from skeletal biology that upper Egypt in large towns at least, was possibly becoming more diverse over time due to immigration from northerners, as the sociocultural unity proceeded during the predynastic, at least in some major centers (Keita 1992, 1996). This could indicate that the south had been impacted by northerners with Haplotypes V, VII, and VIII, thus altering southern populations with higher than now observed levels of IV and XI, if the craniometric data indicate a general phenomenon, which is not likely. The recoverable graves associated with major towns are not likely reflective of the entire population. It is important to remember that population growth in Egypt was ongoing, and any hypothesis must be tempered with this consideration.
Dynasty I brought the political conquest (and cultural extirpation?) of the A-Group Nubian kingdom Ta Seti by (ca. 3000 BC) Egyptian Kings (Wilkinson 1999). Lower Nubia seems to have become largely “depopulated,” based on archeological evidence, but this more likely means that Nubians were partially bioculturally assimilated into southern Egypt. Lower Nubia had a much smaller population than Egypt, which is important to consider in writing of the historical biology of the population. It is important to note that Ta Seti (of Ta Sti, Ta Sety) was the name of the southernmost nome (district) of upper Egypt recorded in later times (Gardiner 1961), which perhaps indicates that the older Nubia was not forgotten/obliterated to historical memory.
Depending on how “Nubia” is conceptualized, the early kingdom seems to have more or less become absorbed politically into Egypt. Egypt continued activities in Nubia in later Dynasty I (Wilkinson 1999, Emery 1961).”
Nothing personal, just want to maintain the integrity of the main topic at hand. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Some of the questions raised above, may be answered shortly: relevant reading from Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005:
“Later there is some movement into Africa after the domestication of plants and Ovacaprines, which happened in the Near East nearly 2000 years before it occurred in Egypt (Hassan 1988, Wetterstrom 1993). Early Neolithic levels in northern Egypt contain the Levantine domesticates, and show some influence in material culture as well (Kobusiewicz 1992). Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).
This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000).
(Also some of those emigrating may have been carrying Haplotype V, descendents of earlier migrants from the Nile valley, given the postulated “Mesolithic” time of the M35 lineage emigration). It is more probable that the current VII and VIII frequencies, greatest in northern Egypt, reflect in the main (but not solely) movements during the Islamic period (Nebel et al. 2002), when some deliberate settlement of Arab tribes was done in Africa, and the effects of polygamy. There must also have been some impact of Near Easterners who settled in the delta at various times in ancient Egypt (Gardiner 1961). More recent movements, in the last two centuries, must not be forgotten in this assessment.
It may be worth putting "Neolithicization" in Lower Egypt into context. The beginnings of "Neolithic" economy in the Levantine context [and its connected Eurasian "Neolithic"], is to be marked by the flow of new "lithics"/stone tools from north Africa via the Nile Valley into the Levant (see for example, Bar Yosef 1987; and Ehret 2004) in addition to any new lithic technology in that part of the world. "Neolithic" in the Nile valley, as placed in the above Keita/Boyce piece, apparently needs to be viewed in a different context from that of the Levant. "Neolithic" with respect to the Nile Valley, would mark an economy that comes with new tooling with respect to the lower Nile valley, but from the aforementioned piece...
There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000). - Keita, Boyce.
^^so, a Neolithic with a "different stripe", so to speak, from the earlier Levantine counterpart.
And yes, understanding all this and other settlement issues, will help us understand cranio-metric pattern along the Lower Nile Valley, and what Keita means, when he uses terms like "coastal northern pattern", "tropical", "Saharo-tropical" and so forth.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
UP
I noticed that Keita says that "southern" crania seem to grow closer to the "northern" (whatever that looked like) pattern with the passage of time. Isn't it also possible that northern Egyptians in turn became more "southern" in appearance than their ancestors? I would certainly expect so, given that Kemet was founded by southern Egyptians conquering northern Egyptians (which has never sat well with assertions that Egyptian civilization was founded by "Caucasoid" invaders).
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: UP
I noticed that Keita says that "southern" crania seem to grow closer to the "northern" (whatever that looked like) pattern with the passage of time. Isn't it also possible that northern Egyptians in turn became more "southern" in appearance than their ancestors? I would certainly expect so, given that Kemet was founded by southern Egyptians conquering northern Egyptians (which has never sat well with assertions that Egyptian civilization was founded by "Caucasoid" invaders).
No disrespect, but it seems that you totally zone out the detailed information of the thread, which you may not like to hear, and only capture the ones that you do. The early dynastic northern crania were studied; and this had the "Northern coastal pattern". This pattern had relatively more diverse trends than that present in pre-dynastic "southern" Nile Valley samples. This is how the said researchers were able to hypothesize that some 'change' in this pattern of the "southern crania" by the early dynastic period, could have been the result of intensified interactions of southern complexes with the more northern Nile Valley complexes. The early "northern" dynastic crania had both "generalized [with respect to North Africa and "Near East"] " and "Saharo-tropical African" trends. The southern predyanstic trends were mainly consistent with "Saharo-tropical African" patterns. From a phenotypic standpoint, trends usually entail 'stereotypes' in morphology, which is why you hear claims such as "north African caucasian" skull of Tut, or that "Somali crania" is "diluted" when it comes to "sub-Saharan". You have to be able to understand what is being measured and how it is, to think out of the box with cranio-metric analysis.
Posted by Willing Thinker (Member # 10819) on :
quote:The early dynastic northern crania were studied; and this had the "Northern coastal pattern". This pattern had relatively more diverse trends than that present in pre-dynastic "southern" Nile Valley samples. This is how the said researchers were able to hypothesize that some 'change' in this pattern of the "southern crania" by the early dynastic period, could have been the result of intensified interactions of southern complexes with the more northern Nile Valley complexes. The early "northern" dynastic crania had both "generalized [with respect to North Africa and "Near East"] " and "Saharo-tropical African" trends. The southern predyanstic trends were mainly consistent with "Saharo-tropical African" patterns.
^So it's basically educated guess?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker:
quote:The early dynastic northern crania were studied; and this had the "Northern coastal pattern". This pattern had relatively more diverse trends than that present in pre-dynastic "southern" Nile Valley samples. This is how the said researchers were able to hypothesize that some 'change' in this pattern of the "southern crania" by the early dynastic period, could have been the result of intensified interactions of southern complexes with the more northern Nile Valley complexes. The early "northern" dynastic crania had both "generalized [with respect to North Africa and "Near East"] " and "Saharo-tropical African" trends. The southern predyanstic trends were mainly consistent with "Saharo-tropical African" patterns.
^So it's basically educated guess?
...with respect to any assessments of the 'original' pattern(s) of the Delta and Lower predynastic Egyptian cranio-morphology?, yes!
Cranio-metry can be relatively ambiguous, especially given no skin attachment, because its features can be common in many places based gene flow, parallel evolution in response to various environments, or both.
Genetics, archeology, cultural anthropology, and physical anthropology lend strong support to the idea of the Nile Valley regions being initially populated by indigenous groups, i.e. Africans, before any return of back-migrants.
BTW, the southern dynastic royal crania were still tilted towards 'Saharo-tropical' African patterns, but 'some' change in its diversity has been noted by Keita.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
ups...
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
up...
I wonder...would Southwest Asian crania have a intermediate morphology between Europeans and Africans?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^Well, for one, as an example, the Lachish crania proved to display "intermediate" patterns, when Keita run them through several multivariate analysis. Craniomorphometic traits however, can change over time in a region; so to make a reasonably objective comparison, it ultimately depends on time, geographical space and what populations are analyzed. For instance, knowing the time frame of the Lachish specimens, Keita knew similarities that some of the Lachish crania had with say, the Romano-British series, must have been a matter of evolutionary coincidence, as opposed to these implicating either the British or Roman elements in the Lachish population; he notes that the neither British or the Romans were in that Levantine region in the time frame in question.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
..no matter how many findings you throw in their faces.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
even dennis miller thought that reply stunk. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
