I differ in opinion from you on the ethnic stock of the Kemetians,and I firmly believe that Lower Egypt-the delta region was inhabited by Costal African types ;while Upper Egypt-Southern Egypt-was populated by a tropical Africans.
quote:
What is the difference between costal and tropical Africans?
Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted 10 March, 2007 11:20 AM
I myself am still curious as to what the opinion of most posters is on the biological makeup of Lower Egypt during the dynastic period.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted 10 March, 2007 11:33 AM
If race doesn't exist why is there a discussion of Ancient Egyptians biological makeup at all?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted 10 March, 2007 12:50 PM
I'm not gonna tell you why he's wrong and i'm right, because i've never claimed he's wrong. If you didn't notice my post was a question not a statement.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Among modern coastal Africans it is easy to show that they consist of African and Eurasian ancestry to varying degree.
Among ancient coastal Africans as you go back in time - it is less clear.
Some studies of the coastal regions show greater affinity in the past with tropical Africans than is the case currently.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted 10 March, 2007 05:05 PM
I wanted to know the difference between costal and tropical african types as per ausar's post. I don't know the anthropological or biological difference.
Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Africa: And I don't care what Europeans say about them, this is my African perspective
Who made you the spokes person of the african people, i've noticed this is not the first time you talk about "your African perspective"?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vidadavida: I wanted to know the difference between costal and tropical african types as per ausar's post. I don't know the anthropological or biological difference.
As I understand it Ausar may be referring to Keita's craniometric study of Ancient Northern Egyptians in which he found them, like North-West Africans in the ancient Magreheb to be "intermediate" between tropical Africans and Europeans.
But what some people take from that is to assume that there must have been admixture between those groups. That's not the case. It could be that they adapted facial features which in *comparison* to those two extremes were intermediate.
I believe it has been stated that they had tropical body plans which would mean they were not adapted to a cold enviroment and would have migrated from further south as Egypt is not in a tropical climate so they would have not evolved such features there.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted 11 March, 2007 09:34 AM
Ok, so North African Costal type has nothing to do with European admixture or European back migration? I just want to be sure I have this correct. Because I always thought that the northern Egyptians were different the the southern Egyptians, but I got reemed on this site for saying it. Then Ausar says it and he wasn't reemed so I just want make sure I understand what is being said.
Looking forward to the response.
Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vidadavida: Ok, so North African Costal type has nothing to do with European admixture or European back migration?
Evergreen Writes:
North Africa is a broad expanse. There is no one size fits all solution to understanding genetic or phenetic variation in this expanse. There are multiple overlapping explainations with temporal and spacial considerations.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vidadavida: Ok, so North African Costal type has nothing to do with European admixture or European back migration? I just want to be sure I have this correct. Because I always thought that the northern Egyptians were different the the southern Egyptians, but I got reemed on this site for saying it. Then Ausar says it and he wasn't reemed so I just want make sure I understand what is being said.
Looking forward to the response.
Alright my man, let me break it down for ya. northern and southern egyptians were basically two poles of the same AFRICAN descended population, with northerners having differences with southerners due to adaption to a coastal environment, as well as mixing with Asiatics like the Hyksos over time. That help ya out babe?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: [QUOTE]Alright my man, let me break it down for ya. northern and southern egyptians were basically two poles of the same AFRICAN descended population, with northerners having differences with southerners due to adaption to a coastal environment
Evergreen Writes:
Not sure about this assessment. Lower and Upper Egyptians were not seperated long enough to truly be divergent of one another due to adaptation. Upper Egyptian culture spread as far north as Palestine by late Naqada II. It is likely that Upper Egyptians took Palestinian wives. Skeletal remains would be reflective of the this admixture.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted 12 March, 2007 09:50 AM
The problem with this coastal African type is that nowhere does Keita produce any modern African populations that can be said to be most reflective of this type. Therefore, since the craniometric values of these populations are never placed into context in terms of the relationship of those values to the craniometric values of modern Africans, we have no way of determining what this type actually looked like and how it related to other African types, both then and now.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted 12 March, 2007 09:53 AM
Mongrel refers to dogs not humans. While of course not as old as tropical Africans (the original Hss) the original Mediterranean littoral African phenotypes are just as authentically African as any other African phenotypes.
As we forward to modern times the (north) coastal African phenotypes begin to acquire eastern Med and northern Med features due to the taking of (primarily) females from those populations by the littoral males.
We consider littoral North Africans an authentic component of the African people. This black african nonsense is something imposed from outside Africa. When we call someone "red ears" we always mean a white European, we never mean a white (north littoral) African. True, because of their culture, we often call them Arab, while never once considering the Arab or the "Berber" to be a white in sense a supra-Pyreneean European is red and white.
At best this identiless (by nation or language)poster calling him/herself "Africa" speaks for no one but him/herself.
posted 12 March, 2007 09:59 AM
My guess is that if one wanted to contrast coastal vs tropical in reference to ancient Egypt one can peruse the art of the dynasty 1, dynasty 0, and earlier. (their palletes and paintings).
posted 12 March, 2007 11:58 AM
..and what would we find in the difference? You are saying the product of the northern Egyptians were mixed with Palestinian and Mediterranean wives and northern Egyptian males?
Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Mongrel refers to dogs not humans. While of course not as old as tropical Africans (the original Hss) the original Mediterranean littoral African phenotypes are just as authentically African as any other African phenotypes.
As we forward to modern times the (north) coastal African phenotypes begin to acquire eastern Med and northern Med features due to the taking of (primarily) females from those populations by the littoral males.
We consider littoral North Africans an authentic component of the African people. This black african nonsense is something imposed from outside Africa. When we call someone "red ears" we always mean a white European, we never mean a white (north littoral) African. True, because of their culture, we often call them Arab, while never once considering the Arab or the "Berber" to be a white in sense a supra-Pyreneean European is red and white.
At best this identiless (by nation or language)poster calling him/herself "Africa" speaks for no one but him/herself.
Indeed.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: The problem with this coastal African type is that nowhere does Keita produce any modern African populations that can be said to be most reflective of this type. Therefore, since the craniometric values of these populations are never placed into context in terms of the relationship of those values to the craniometric values of modern Africans, we have no way of determining what this type actually looked like and how it related to other African types, both then and now.
quote: Evergreen Posts:
It is unlikely that there was ever one North African coastal type. Nor is there evidence of consistent population occupation of coastal North Africa.
quote:Among modern coastal Africans it is easy to show that they consist of African and Eurasian ancestry to varying degree.
Among ancient coastal Africans as you go back in time - it is less clear.
Some studies of the coastal regions show greater affinity in the past with tropical Africans than is the case currently.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: [QUOTE]Alright my man, let me break it down for ya. northern and southern egyptians were basically two poles of the same AFRICAN descended population, with northerners having differences with southerners due to adaption to a coastal environment
Evergreen Writes:
Not sure about this assessment. Lower and Upper Egyptians were not seperated long enough to truly be divergent of one another due to adaptation. Upper Egyptian culture spread as far north as Palestine by late Naqada II. It is likely that Upper Egyptians took Palestinian wives. Skeletal remains would be reflective of the this admixture.
Babe, you can disagree with the facts if you want to but it still stands lower egyptians were african, just alot more on the mixed side than their southern brethren, think Halle Berry versus Forrest whittaker, mkay? I got this from Keita's studies so he's pretty much the ultimate authority on what Im talking about. And about your comment about Palestinians, why wouldn't the upper egyptian merchants or conquerors simply marry into the local population instead of taking wives back all the way back to upper egpyt? Speaking of that, there seemed to be a mutual trade between the two regions during the predynastic, as Palestinians evidently married into the local egyptian (most likely lower egyptian) population as well.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Alright my man, let me break it down for ya. northern and southern egyptians were basically two poles of the same AFRICAN descended population, with northerners having differences with southerners due to adaption to a coastal environment
Evergreen Writes:
Not sure about this assessment. Lower and Upper Egyptians were not seperated long enough to truly be divergent of one another due to adaptation. Upper Egyptian culture spread as far north as Palestine by late Naqada II. It is likely that Upper Egyptians took Palestinian wives. Skeletal remains would be reflective of the this admixture.
Babe, you can disagree with the facts if you want to but it still stands lower egyptians were african, just alot more on the mixed side than their southern brethren, think Halle Berry versus Forrest whittaker, mkay? I got this from Keita's studies so he's pretty much the ultimate authority on what Im talking about. And about your comment about Palestinians, why wouldn't the upper egyptian merchants or conquerors simply marry into the local population instead of taking wives back all the way back to upper egpyt? Speaking of that, there seemed to be a mutual trade between the two regions during the predynastic, as Palestinians evidently married into the local egyptian (most likely lower egyptian) population as well.
You are both right, in that the Southwest Asians migrated back into the Nile, as did the Nile Valley indigenes move into Southwest Asia. The evolution of the variations in Lower Egyptian would be much clearer, if we had enough predynastic remains from that region; however, this seems to not be the case, despite a few specimens . There is some tendency to assume that Keita's 'northern coastal pattern' is reference to some "monotypic" physical type, but careful reading will reveal that this is clearly not the case:
“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.
…**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.
Finally, it can se said…
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
They are intermediate, because the northern specimens have crania that have affinities with both tropical African patterns and Eurasian(southwest Asian)/northern Eurasian "modal" patterns. This is what the "coastal north African pattern" represents, i.e. the average covering these variations.
On another note:
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 SourcePosts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: On another note:
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
I take this to mean that there simply has not been enough testing on the remaining Lower Egyptian specimens to determine their biological makeup in comparison to the modern population.
As for Keita's craniometric affinities, his "tropical Africans" are a diverse group including many East African populations.
So if they are intermediate between tropical Africans and Europeans I would take that to mean that there facial features (nose breadth, jaw length, face width etc.) were somewhat narrow and slender.
Are there measurements of modern people who are similar to these Ancient Lower Egyptians?
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So if they are intermediate between tropical Africans and Europeans I would take that to mean that there facial features (nose breadth, jaw length, face width etc.) were somewhat narrow and slender.
No. Again, the modal pattern is representative of the "average" of traits. This means that the in a given crania sample for one designated group, the number of 'stereotypical' traits associated with certain groups either predominate, or there is a mixture of distributions of such traits. For example, prognathism is a 'stereotyped' trait, usually associated with crania from tropical environments. Here is a good example of what I'm getting at, as already provided in my last post:
“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).
^As a result of this, the average for the Maghrebian crania will fall in between the averages of tropical African specimens and European specimens. Does this make sense? I hope so.
Ps:
Keita's contextualization of what "tropical African and European metric phenotypes" entail should be left to his, but take Hiernaux's account into consideration, for instance:
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
Take the head diameters for example; if the means for "head diameters" for the African variation covers 80% of the world range, where then is the rest of the variations, i.e. the remaining 20%? Yeap, it would be outside the general 'identified/perceived' African range, meaning the variation outside of Africa.
Another example from the Hiernaux piece, in terms of nasal index:
"the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record." - Hiernaux
Where then is this "narrow range of extremely low means", if "absent from the African record"? The implication is that, this narrow range is largely found outside of Africa.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted 13 March, 2007 03:19 PM
I don't see how that is any different than what I surmised.
Doesn't that same study say that the Badarian and other Upper Egyptian groups cluster firmly within the measurements of the tropical African series and away from Europeans?
If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that the measurements of the costal North Africans *on average* lie between the average of the tropical African and Northern European series.
So if were were to ascribe numbers to this thought process, let's say that 20 stands for the extreme value of tropical Africans (e.g. skulls with the most prognathism) and 1 stands for the extreme value of Europeans (e.g. with the most orthogantic jaw).
Now let's say the average of the tropical series is 8 points lower than the extreme value and that of the European series average is 8 points higher than its extreme value.
That would make the Tropical African average 12 and the European average 9.
If the North African costal pattern average is intermediate between the average values of those groups that would give it a value of 10.5 correct?
LOL, actually I think I see where I went wrong in my assumption now. Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Africa: And I don't care what Europeans say about them, this is my African perspective
Who made you the spokes person of the african people, i've noticed this is not the first time you talk about "your African perspective"?
I concur, Africa you need to educate yourself about Africa and stop calling fellow African people mongrels. Who do you think you are? You don't run Africa even if you think you do.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted 13 March, 2007 05:22 PM
This, what you [Mansa Musa] wrote:
So if they are intermediate between tropical Africans and Europeans I would take that to mean that there facial features (nose breadth, jaw length, face width etc.) were somewhat narrow and slender.
And this, what I wrote:
No. Again, the modal pattern is representative of the "average" of traits. This means that the in a given crania sample for one designated group, the number of 'stereotypical' traits associated with certain groups either predominate, or there is a mixture of distributions of such traits. For example, prognathism is a 'stereotyped' trait, usually associated with crania from tropical environments. Here is a good example of what I'm getting at, as already provided in my last post…
Are not one and the same in context; the first assumes the “modal pattern” to be a monotypic physical type “set” while the latter is referring to a distribution and frequency of multivariate traits. The intermediacy happens precisely because tropical African traits overlap with those both in North African ranges and the European ranges, while the uneven and unbalanced distribution of, or contrasting “trends” of certain traits moves crania to opposing poles of the “averages” taken. Similarly, the northern African average lies in between, precisely because cranial patterns within the samples overlap with those present in both European and tropical African patterns. If northern African patterns were a monotypic set of traits, which doesn’t overlap with say, tropical African trends but overlaps with the European patterns, which your earlier post seems to imply with “somewhat narrow and slender facial features”, then it would overlap with just the European patterns, and not be intermediate. The same scenario can be played with North African patterns just overlapping with tropical African patterns, but not European pattern. If the North African patterns don’t overlap with either entity, then there is no “intermediary” to speak of. But as your final comments in the last post suggests, it seems that you’ve come around from where the confusion lies. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I concur, Africa you need to educate yourself about Africa and stop calling fellow African people mongrels. Who do you think you are? You don't run Africa even if you think you do.
posted 13 March, 2007 07:57 PM
The point being made about Northern Coastal Africans is based on an observation of ancient craniometric features. However, craniometric features alone do not determine phenotype, which are subject to other factors which do not always overlap and correspond to craniometric variation. Therefore, just because ancient Northern Africans had average craniometric indices between tropical African and Northern European average indices, does not necessarily determine skin complexion. The fact that Northern Africa has been more exposed to coastal migration from OUTSIDE Africa has made it largely speculation as to the physical differences in appearance between coastal Africans observed today and the coastal Africans from 5,000 years ago. This is a fundamental point of confusion throughout Northern Africa, as the presence of populations from outside Africa in this area is quite old indeed, thereby making it easy to assume that the features of the modern populations have ALWAYS been present in North Africa. Therefore, the only way to make a definitive conclusion is to compare craniometric indices from ancient African skulls from throughout Northern Africa at various time depths, to see how these features have changed and adapted over time. By comparing the oldest available craniometric data against current craniometric data, it would be much easier to determine how related modern populations in North Africa are to those of the far distant past. And, before resorting to any categorizations of ancient North Africans being mongrels, remember that the variation in INDIGENOUS Africans can range to the features of the Khoi San in the south to the Dinka in Sudan. Both are at the extreme opposite of the spectrum of complexions in Africa and BOTH are equally indigenous, with LITTLE of their features being due to foreign admixture.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The fact that Northern Africa has been more exposed to coastal migration from OUTSIDE Africa has made it largely speculation as to the physical differences in appearance between coastal Africans observed today and the coastal Africans from 5,000 years ago. This is a fundamental point of confusion throughout Northern Africa, as the presence of populations from outside Africa in this area is quite old indeed, thereby making it easy to assume that the features of the modern populations have ALWAYS been present in North Africa. Therefore, the only way to make a definitive conclusion is to compare craniometric indices from ancient African skulls from throughout Northern Africa at various time depths, to see how these features have changed and adapted over time.
North African crania analyzed...Examples:
[*]From Upper Paleolithic periods:
Maghreb: "Mechta type" (caution: blanket term applied to various North African crania ranging from Upper Paleolithic to ca. Neolithic era)
posted 14 March, 2007 09:09 PM
A good example of a berber who could possibly be said to be of "intermediate" type, but not mixed can be seen here(of course you cant tell from a picture):
posted 14 March, 2007 11:01 PM
Again, "intermediacy" as mentioned earlier, is not a reference to some monotypic set of phenotypic traits, but "averages" of multivariate cranial metrics/patterns.
^As a demonstration, consider the following:
Mid-Holocene cranial series were analyzed from northern Africa, a region intermediate both geographically and climatically between tropical Africa and Europe. Ancient Series from this region have intermediate multivariate metric patterns by centroid values.
However, centroids are **multivariate means** and hide **variability**. The territorial maps and unknown analyses give a fuller picture.
What are the possible underlying causes for intermediate “modal” patterns? Well, from reading on, any of the following can be held accountable, and not necessarily mutually exclusive of one another:
[*]Theoretically an intermediate position may be secondary to hybridization of peoples with different craniometric values from adjacent regions, since hybrids have intermediate metric values (Trevor, 1953).
[*]A series composed of notably different subgroups could present a statistically artifactual intermediate group.
[*] Alternatively local (intermediate) selection pressures or a combination of these factors could explain a middle position.
Examples of second factor [and possibly first factor]:
[*]The reality of an intermediate position is seen in Howells (1973), where the late dynastic northern “E” series groups with European crania in one cluster analysis and with tropical African series in another. This is true although Near Eastern and European crania may be present in the “E” series, which has crania from the final epochs of dynastic Egypt, periods of increased foreign rule and immigration (Gardiner, 1961),
[*]The variability of the Maghreb series is probably secondary to migration into the region. This is not to resurrect the migrationist paradigm and imply that all biological or cultural change, or variability, is secondary to migration. Each case deserves its own evaluation. The Mediterranean Neolithic tradition, as noted earlier, may have been brought from Europe by migrants (Camps, 1982). However, the “European” metrics of some of the crania may be secondary to gene flow from Phoenicia, since Punic craniometric data (in Schwidetsky and Ramaswamy, 1980) reveal them to have values similar to those of Europeans (see data in Howells, 1973). Blacks (the ‘Ethiopians’ of the Maghreb and Sahara of the ancient writers) may have migrated from a desiccating Sahara during an earlier hunting period or during the Neolithic period or may have been part of the indigenous early Holocene population. This would pertain to the Nile Valley also.
Source: Keita - Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa.
On a final note, from the aforementioned source:
“The Saharan rock paintings in Tassili (Lhote, 1959), which must be interpreted cautiously, seem to show the wide variety of phenotypes known in the Maghreb. “Blacks,” including peoples with a more generalized facial phenotype, called by Hiernaux (1975) “Elongated African,” and not only those with typologically and (caricatural) extreme characteristics of the pseudotaxon “true Negro” (Seligman, 1966) are to be seen in the paintings. This is consonant with Saharan and predynastic southern skeletal remains.” - Keita
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Babe, you can disagree with the facts if you want to but it still stands lower egyptians were african, just alot more on the mixed side than their southern brethren, think Halle Berry versus Forrest whittaker, mkay? [/QB]
Evergreen Writes:
Explaining variation in Africa with models based solely upon extra-African admixture is simplistic. Especially prior to the New Kingdom.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic