Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Evergreen Writes:
I have never seen peer-reviewed limb-length proportion studies on EBA Palestinians.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Evergreen Writes:
I have never seen peer-reviewed limb-length proportion studies on EBA Palestinians.
At this point during the predynastic period, I wouldn't expect Palestinians to be tropically adapted in limb proportions.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
Considering the first post about the early Lower Egyptians, from the same source:
"In a database of human cranial variation worldwide(CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc. The original source is the largest series of skulls from Egypt(1500, collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza and dating from the 26th to 30th dynasties. Some of the skulls bear weapon injuries. The cultural material found with them is wholly Egyptian, but was small in quantity. Conceivably, the community was immigrant, perhaps mercenaries and their families. Or it could be that, by this period, northern Egyptians, so long exposed to population mixing, were tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier. If, on the other hand, CRANID had used one of the Elephantine populations of the same period, the geographic association would be much more with African groups to the south. It is dangerous to take one set of skeletons and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt."
p.55
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Evergreen Writes:
I have never seen peer-reviewed limb-length proportion studies on EBA Palestinians.
At this point during the predynastic period, I wouldn't expect Palestinians to be tropically adapted in limb proportions.
Evergreen Writes:
Why? And what does this tell us about the Ancient Israelites?
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Evergreen Writes:
I have never seen peer-reviewed limb-length proportion studies on EBA Palestinians.
At this point during the predynastic period, I wouldn't expect Palestinians to be tropically adapted in limb proportions.
Evergreen Writes:
Why? And what does this tell us about the Ancient Israelites?
And what of the ancient Israelites? That there is no close affinity between predynastic Lower Egyptians and Palestinians of the same period is no shocker, now if the Mesolithic skeletons showed no affinity[the Natufians] maybe we could call this into question. the crania in question are from a much later period.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QUOTE]And what of the ancient Israelites?
Evergreen Writes:
Some have claimed that the Ancient Israelites were primarily a Black people. Others have claimed this belief to be psuedo-scientific. Data on Bronze Age Palestinians may be usefull in assessing this claim.
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QUOTE]....there is no close affinity between predynastic Lower Egyptians and Palestinians of the same period....
Evergreen Writes:
Again, I have seen no study that has assessed the affinities of EBA Palestinians. If you are aware of such a study please provide the source?
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Some have claimed that the Ancient Israelites were primarily a Black people. Others have claimed this belief to be psuedo-scientific. Data on Bronze Age Palestinians may be usefull in assessing this claim.
And I've seen no definitive proof for this claim. Most of those who make the claim use the Bible as a basis[normally focusing on the "Hamitic line"], but no studies based on bioanthropology
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
And it is sure is amazing as all hell that as much as I post about Lachish, including the bas-reliefs, that GOOGLE consistently misses caching it. If I can dig it out again I'll for sure personally cache it.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
1. Outside of the the Lachish remains I am unaware of any verifiable Israelite remains. This is one reason we see the possible proliferation of psuedo-science regarding this culture. Turbaned Israelities of Harlem ,etc.
2. Given Egypto-Kushite suzeraintry of this region since the 19th Dyansty one would expect to find Egypto-Kushites stationed in this region. This is very different from the claim that the Ancient Israelites were primarily Black.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Bioarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Transition in the Southern Levant Using Dental Nonmetric Traits
Ullinger et al.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 128:466–476 (2005)
"The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg et al., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht. Dothan, however, may have had slightly more Egyptian genetic influence than Lachish. The location of Dothan along a major international highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia(as well as the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia) during the Late Bronze Age may shed light on this finding (Mullins, 2002)."
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I fail to see what the Hebrew-Israelites of Harlem and elsewhere (or the white shirt and black tie Mormons) of the 20th century have to do with a two thousand six hundred year old boneyard in Judah.
Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
You may not want the ancient Judahites to be a black people but your wishes have no effect on them. Neither the literature of the Judahites or their bones or their conquerors depictions nor on the iconography or literature of their later Roman conquerors.
Why don't you have a problem with penguin dressing Jews of Monsey? Whites claiming Israelite ancestry is acceptable to you whereas blacks claiming Israelite ancestry isn't palatable. Who taught you how to think like that and to use anachronistic extrapolation?
----
OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
Evergreen Writes:
- Beards on Assyrian captives does not make them Israelites. Sadam Hussein was bearded when the Americans captured him as well. In addition, even **if** these images represented ancient Israelites instead of Egyptians/Kushites stationed in Israel it in no way implies that all or even most ancient Israelites were Black.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
It would be nice to find out if the info from the first post represents peer reviewed research.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
Evergreen Writes:
Now Cipher! My mind is free. I deal with and treat my people on the basis of equality, not on the basis of some psuedo-scientific "chosen/select people" school of thought. This is grafted science. Windsor was still worshiping the golden-calf in the desert. He didn't make it into the promissed land Elijah messaged.
The archaeology of the EBA southern Levant is indicative of a SW Asian sphere of influence not a Sahelian/Sudanese experence as we see in proto-dynastic Egypt.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
They are not Assyrian captives. They are Judahites. Their beards belie your claim to their being "Egypto-Kushite"(???)
It's not a matter of even if. The scenes are of Sennacherib's conquest of Lachish and keep your wishing they remain contemporaneous images of Judahites by their conquerors.
Oh, yeah. Of course they're not black. Only the extreme so-called hideous negro of Eurocentric anthropology is black. That's why in your world even after convincing yourself they were "Egypto- Kushites"(???) they still aren't black because said "Egypto-Kushites"(???) aren't black either.
Amazing how those who have it in for Jews allow their illness to blindside them against their other dearly held tenets. See you dislexic logic:
P1 - Egypto-Kushites are black. P1 - But Judahites can't be black. P2 - Lachish's phenotype is due to them being Egypto-Kushites. C - Yet even if they're Egypto-Kushites they're still not black.
Duh-uh???
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
Evergreen Writes:
- Beards on Assyrian captives does not make them Israelites. Sadam Hussein was bearded when the Americans captured him as well. In addition, even **if** these images represented ancient Israelites instead of Egyptians/Kushites stationed in Israel it in no way implies that all or even most ancient Israelites were Black.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Calm down and quit spouting ideology. A cracked ideology that got you into this mess to start with.
I'm dealig with primary 7th century BCE documentation and osteo remains and and 1st century CE primary documents.
You on the other hand are talking 20 the century BA religions.
You can't make the bas-reliefs, the ossuary, or the Roman records go away by conjuring up 20th century willow the wisps. Nor has anyone but you tried to make pre-dynastic "Sahelian/Sudanese" (???)out of NK era Judahites.
You've clearly spelled out the bias that fuels you. You imagine yourself some champion of the people tilting the windmill of their displaced religosity.
That's not what it's about. It's about assessing the available material as unbiasedly as possible.
Quit while you're ahead lest your exposed hatred come to consume you.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
Evergreen Writes:
Now Cipher! My mind is free. I deal with and treat my people on the basis of equality, not on the basis of some psuedo-scientific "chosen/select people" school of thought. This is grafted science. Windsor was still worshiping the golden-calf in the desert. He didn't make it into the promissed land Elijah messaged.
The archaeology of the EBA southern Levant is indicative of a SW Asian sphere of influence not a Sahelian/Sudanese experence as we see in proto-dynastic Egypt.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: They are not Assyrian captives. They are Judahites. Their beards belie your claim to their being "Egypto-Kushite"(???)
Evergreen Writes:
Having a beard and living in Judahian territory does not make one a Judahian anymore than living in Crown Heights and having a beard make one a Jew. More psuedo-science.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course they're not black. Only the extreme so-called hideous negro of Eurocentric anthropology is black. That's why in your world even after convincing yourself they were "Egypto- Kushites"(???) they still aren't black because said "Egypto-Kushites"(???) aren't black either."
Evergreen Writes:
I never said these images did not represent Black people. No issue with them being Black. The point is these images do NOT provide evidence that the Ancient Israelites were primarily Black. This is my point.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Amazing how those who have it in for Jews allow their illness to blindside them against their other dearly held tenets.
Evergreen Writes:
I don't have anything against the modern Jewish people of the ancient Eurasian people of Judah and Israel. What I am against is psuedo-science pretending to be science.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Evergreen Writes:
The African Origin of Civilization By Cheikh Anta Diop
"After many ups and downs, the Canaanites and the WHITE TRIBES, SYMBOLIZED BY ABRAHAM AND HIS DESCENDENTS (Isaac's lineage), blended to become in time the Jewish people of today"
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I'm dealig with primary 7th century BCE documentation and osteo remains ....
Evergreen Writes:
Please provide your peer-reviewed source that claims that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Ah, but living in Crown Heights does make one a Brooklynite.
Indeed, you do sling some smoky pseudo-science that can't dissipate the solid bas-reliefs and bones.
Being one of the leaders of Lachish at the time Sennacherib conquered makes one a Judahite. Again, and you can't sidestep your major blunder, the beards make you a wrong when you try to make "Egypto-Kushites"(???) out of the Judahites of Lachish.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: They are not Assyrian captives. They are Judahites. Their beards belie your claim to their being "Egypto-Kushite"(???)
Evergreen Writes:
Having a beard and living in Judahian territory does not make one a Judahian anymore than living in Crown Heights and having a beard make one a Jew. More psuedo-science.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
That's it back pedal, save face.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: I never said these images did not represent Black people. No issue with them being Black.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Indeed, you do sling some smoky pseudo-science that can't dissipate the solid bas-reliefs and bones.
Evergreen Writes:
Again, I ask....where can I find the peer-reviewed source that supports you bizzare claim that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people? At least Marc Washington can put up half a fight with his version of psuedo-science. All you dwell on is beards.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: That's it back pedal, save face.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: I never said these images did not represent Black people. No issue with them being Black.
Evergreen Writes:
Why would I need to back pedal when I never made the claim that these images were not of Black people? Is this the best you can do? Instead of side-tracking, answer my direct question:
Where can I find the peer-reviewed source that supports you bizzare claim that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people?
You can fool those 17 year-old kids impressed by your turban and sandals as they get off the subway, but you can't fool me!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Still can't over how silly it was to try to make beardless "Egypto-Kushites" out of bearded Lachish Judahites and then turn around and say that your "Egypto-Kushites" weren't black. Pseudo-science par excellence and the very primer of illogical progression.
I strongly suggest you avail yourself of the material I've posted the forum supporting that the southern Levantine populations were black. They are plethora. You can start with the links I gave above in this thread which, obviously, you've ignored.
My claim is that the Judahites of Lachish were black. You tried but failed to assail that fact.
I'm not a weasel chasing monkey. You can use the internal search engine to complete your task of re-reading all the contemporaneous and self acclaimed colour of the Judahites in sources ranging from 7th century BCE to 4th century CE, from the Lachish material, the Andromeda mythos, Tacitus, the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer, etc.
You on the otherhand have presented absolutely nothing from anywhere about the colour affiliations of either Judahites, Israelites, Hebrews, or Semites.
Until you do (and you won't find anything primary other than what I've put up -- including the bas-relief supposedly depicting Jehu of Israel which is not a black phenotype) I bid you adieu.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: My claim is that the Judahites of Lachish were black.
Evergreen Writes:
Then I appologize, we are arguing two different things. You seem to be claimimg that some Judahites at Lachish were Black. I can accept that **SOME** of the people in this one town were Black.
I am stating that there is no evidence that the people of Israel and Judah (more than just Lachish) were primarily a Black people. Nor is there any evidence that most of the people in the one city of Lacish were Black. A few images of Assyrian captives with beards have some of our people coming up with far-fetched tales of the lost-tribes of Israel in Cameroon and Missisippi.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You're making an ass out of your assumption of what clothes I wear and again expose your ass and the hatred that fuels and discolors any attempted analysis you try to make of the primary evidences. No objectivity. We see you're an subjective self-admitted hater of the Black American group the Hebrew-Israelites. What happened? Did one of them steal your woman? Personally I don't give a damn one way or another about the Hebrew Israelite thing. Try something else if you want to bait me because you don't know anything about ancient Israel and Judea or what opinions their contemporaries held about them or the southern Levant in general.
Anyway, attacking ethnicities is very petty and makes you little more than a racialist disguising himself as a progressive.
Again I advise you to quit while you're ahead lest your exposed hatred come to consume you even more than it has since I first counseled you (you've shown you have nothing against the white brooklynites choice of assumed spirituality yet you hate the black Harlemites in their decided religiosity. Why do Black Americans hate each other over the silliest things like the right of individual self-determinination in religious identity?).
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: That's it back pedal, save face.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: I never said these images did not represent Black people. No issue with them being Black.
Evergreen Writes:
Why would I need to back pedal when I never made the claim that these images were not of Black people? Is this the best you can do? Instead of side-tracking, answer my direct question:
Where can I find the peer-reviewed source that supports you bizzare claim that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people?
You can fool those 17 year-old kids impressed by your turban and sandals as they get off the subway, but you can't fool me!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Evergreen, I am not of your people. You are utterly consumed in your hatred or wish to control Black Americans their choice in religious identity. I feel sorry for you, really I do. You have devovlved from the person who was a lofty Thought and whose methodology and objectvity I so admired into a rigid tree who's recently displayed very thinly veiled disturbing racialist ideology. I hope you get some quality relax time and a ticket to the tropics to just loll around and enjoy and just let your mind go.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Try something else if you want to bait me because you don't know anything about ancient Israel and Judea or what opinions their contemporaries held about them or the southern Levant in general.
Evergreen Writes:
Bottom line, you have **FAILED** to provide any evidence what so ever that the people of ancient Judah or Israel were primarily a Black people. The reason you have failed to provide this data is because it is non-existant.
There is a history of REAL Black people in the southern Levant within the holocene and this is with the Natufian people. These Blacks were absorbed by the indigenous Eurasian populations of the region. The southern Levant was inhabitated primarily by Eurasian people by the Late Bronze Age when Israel and Judah formed as kingdoms.
Misinterpreting a few isolated decontextualized images does not prove a primary Black presence in the region during the period in question. Analysis of linguistics (Semitic is spoken by people of primarily Eurasian background except in Ethiopia), dna (Eurasian genes predominate in modern Palestine and among modern Jews), biological anthropology (see data above on dental analysis of these people) and the historical record indicate that since the Natufian phase we have seen no major peopling of the southern Levant from tropical Africa.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Evergreen, I am not of your people. You are utterly consumed in your hatred or wish to control Black Americans their choice in religious identity. I feel sorry for you, really I do. You have devovlved from the person who was a lofty Thought and whose methodology and objectvity I so admired into a rigid tree who's recently displayed very thinly veiled disturbing racialist ideology. I hope you get some quality relax time and a ticket to the tropics to just loll around and enjoy and just let your mind go.
Evergreen Writes:
Boo-hoo. Quite crying and man-up.
I reiterate:
Please provide your peer-reviewed source that claims that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people.
Save the drama-queen tactics. I have no sympathy for psuedo-science.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Evergreen Posts:
Great African Thinkers CA Diop
"The brachycephalic yellow races, and the Semites (Arabs or Jews) appear only within the confines of the Mesolithic Period, probably following great migratory currents and the cross-breeding which followed it."
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thought:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
1. Outside of the the Lachish remains I am unaware of any verifiable Israelite remains. This is one reason we see the possible proliferation of psuedo-science regarding this culture. Turbaned Israelities of Harlem ,etc.
2. Given Egypto-Kushite suzeraintry of this region since the 19th Dyansty one would expect to find Egypto-Kushites stationed in this region. This is very different from the claim that the Ancient Israelites were primarily Black.
Sure...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I fail to see what the Hebrew-Israelites of Harlem and elsewhere (or the white shirt and black tie Mormons) of the 20th century have to do with a two thousand six hundred year old boneyard in Judah.
Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
You may not want the ancient Judahites to be a black people but your wishes have no effect on them. Neither the literature of the Judahites or their bones or their conquerors depictions nor on the iconography or literature of their later Roman conquerors.
Why don't you have a problem with penguin dressing Jews of Monsey? Whites claiming Israelite ancestry is acceptable to you whereas blacks claiming Israelite ancestry isn't palatable. Who taught you how to think like that and to use anachronistic extrapolation?
----
OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
quote:Calm down and quit spouting ideology. A cracked ideology that got you into this mess to start wit
^^^^^Co-sign.
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: And what does this tell us about the Ancient Israelites?
It tells us that the Ancient Egyptians and so-called "Israelites" had been genetically separated for a substantial period of time during the period discussed here, and that the Egyptians showed an African tendency not found (or at least much less significant) in southern Levant peoples. Thus, sorting the Israelites or other southern Levant populations into a "black African" category alongside the Egyptians is not justified. Now as for the limb ratios of Levant peoples, I would imagine that they (as well as the ratios of other non-black Mediterranean peoples like Middle Easterners and Southern Europeans) were intermediate between black Africans and northern Europeans. They were, after all, living in a subtropical (as opposed to tropical or temperate) zone.
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
And it is sure is amazing as all hell that as much as I post about Lachish, including the bas-reliefs, that GOOGLE consistently misses caching it. If I can dig it out again I'll for sure personally cache it.
Those "reliefs" are not painted. Just as there are black people with straight hair, so are there non-black people with curly hair. There is no race with a monopoly on a certain hair texture.
Now as for the Israelites' skin color, I will refer you to the old Biblical story of Noah's sons and their descendents. The Hebrews traced their ancestry to Shem, the dusky race. Ham was the progenitor of peoples we would call "black" today. Claiming the Israelites were black goes against how they described their own skin color---that is, dusky and tanned.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:Originally posted by Thought:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
1. Outside of the the Lachish remains I am unaware of any verifiable Israelite remains. This is one reason we see the possible proliferation of psuedo-science regarding this culture. Turbaned Israelities of Harlem ,etc.
2. Given Egypto-Kushite suzeraintry of this region since the 19th Dyansty one would expect to find Egypto-Kushites stationed in this region. This is very different from the claim that the Ancient Israelites were primarily Black.
Sure...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I fail to see what the Hebrew-Israelites of Harlem and elsewhere (or the white shirt and black tie Mormons) of the 20th century have to do with a two thousand six hundred year old boneyard in Judah.
Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
You may not want the ancient Judahites to be a black people but your wishes have no effect on them. Neither the literature of the Judahites or their bones or their conquerors depictions nor on the iconography or literature of their later Roman conquerors.
Why don't you have a problem with penguin dressing Jews of Monsey? Whites claiming Israelite ancestry is acceptable to you whereas blacks claiming Israelite ancestry isn't palatable. Who taught you how to think like that and to use anachronistic extrapolation?
----
OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
quote:Calm down and quit spouting ideology. A cracked ideology that got you into this mess to start wit
^^^^^Co-sign.
Evergreen Writes:
Alive-(What Box), all "clowning" aside the point is there is a real Black history we find in Ancient Egypt. Eurocentrists have a vested interest in seperating Black people from their historic past in North Africa. The White Power Structure is based upon the false teaching that White people founded what we call civilization. It is obvious that what we call civilization is based and rooted in North Africa. North Africa was originally inhabited by Black people at the time so-called civilized society began. Hence they are forced to create a fictious history of ancient White North Africans. Black people have responded with the truth in our history. But they try and negate this response by making our argument seem fringe and psuedo-scientific. Hence, we have a duty to expose the psuedo-scientists in our community who are like Trojan Horses, destroying our credibility from within. This goes for blatant psuedo-scientists like Marc Washington or psuedo-scientists such as alTakruri who garb their psuedo-science in anthropological rhetoric.
The Blackness of the late bronze age Levant is not proven by a few images of miscontextualized bearded Assyrian images.
1. Those images may be Egyptians or Kushities stationed in Lachish.
2. Even if these images were of Judahians, this in no way implies that these images are reflective of the entire population of Judah and Israel as a whole. They may be images of men who were BOTH Egyptian/Kushite and Judahian. We know that Egypt/Kush governed this region, hence it is possible that Egyptian/Kushites married into the Judahian elite. The average Judahian would look no more like this elite image than the average Egyptian looked like the light-skinned Egyptian elite sons of SW Asian women and Africa men in the New Kingdom paintings.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Interesting revelation, and it isn’t even that new. How early are the specimens form Palestine and Byblos regions, according to the author?
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Why? And what does this tell us about the Ancient Israelites?
And what of the ancient Israelites? That there is no close affinity between predynastic Lower Egyptians and Palestinians of the same period is no shocker, now if the Mesolithic skeletons showed no affinity[the Natufians] maybe we could call this into question. the crania in question are from a much later period.
The first one comes across the term 'Yisrael' - which becomes 'Israel' - in archaeology, is back in the 13th century B.C., and interestingly in Egypt. To that extent, "ancient Israelites" are irrelevant to Predyanstic-age Egyptian specimens and Levantine ones.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
And what of the ancient Israelites?
Evergreen Writes:
Some have claimed that the Ancient Israelites were primarily a Black people. Others have claimed this belief to be psuedo-scientific. Data on Bronze Age Palestinians may be usefull in assessing this claim.
Don’t know if this would make ancient Israelites "black", but certainly the people who became so-called, where migrants from the Nile Valley who would move into the Levant, and would eventually lay the foundation of Israel as a polity, with the assistance and participation of the pre-existing inhabitants of the region. The idea that ancient Israelites comprised of immigrants from the Nile Valley, is not something I would consider to be pseudo-science; but then, your concern is of another issue, which is whether ancient Isrealites were “primarily a Black people”. That would depend on whether you see ancient Egyptian society of the 15th century- 14th century BC as being of “primarily Black people”, and whether the same would apply to the in situ Levantines, with whom the Nile Valley migrants co-habited in the Levant.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Bioarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Transition in the Southern Levant Using Dental Nonmetric Traits
Ullinger et al.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 128:466–476 (2005)
"The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg et al., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht..."
Risdon may have had his shortcomings, but this has nothing to do with the deduction that gene flow from the Nile Valley may in part explain the pattern of the diversity seen in the Lachish specimens.
quote:
"...Dothan, however, may have had slightly more Egyptian genetic influence than Lachish. The location of Dothan along a major international highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia(as well as the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia) during the Late Bronze Age may shed light on this finding (Mullins, 2002)."
The author's contradiction comes across in this piece. First, he/she says, "The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported, only to then suggest that the Nile Valley influence does in fact occur, by saying, "Dothan, however, may have had slightly more Egyptian genetic influence than Lachish".
Moreover, the Lachish crania were obviously recognized as being quite heterogeneous, to the extent that it could not be deemed a single inbreeding population. So, it will be interesting to see how even the dental traits could be deemed the same across such a heterogeneous group.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]....ancient Israelites comprised of immigrants from the Nile Valley ...
Evergreen Writes:
1. What is your source for this claim?
2. Where did they migrate from in the Nile Valley?
3. When did they enter the Nile Valley and from where?
4. When did they migrate out of the Nile Valley and into the Delta of Egypt?
5. When did they migrate out of Egypt?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Bioarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Transition in the Southern Levant Using Dental Nonmetric Traits
Ullinger et al.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 128:466–476 (2005)
"The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg et al., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht..."
Risdon may have had his shortcomings, but this has nothing to do with the deduction that gene flow from the Nile Valley may in part explain the pattern of the diversity seen in the Lachish specimens.
Speaking of Risdon's shortcoming, it would be this:
Risdon’s work (1939) is the only study that examines the Lachish series as its major focus. Using metric variables in the now credited Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.) (Fisher, 1939; Seltzer, 1937; Howells, 1973), he concludes that the Lachish series represents Upper Egyptians, who were residents in Lower Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty and who immigrated to Lachish during that time (between 1567 and 1320 BC), remaining endogamous.
Nothing about the Lachish crania in question, is suggestive of a single inbreeding population or that it was *entirely* made up of migrants from the Nile Valley. *If* this is specifically what Ullinger et al. were rejecting, and NOT the idea of gene flow from the Nile Valley, then I stand corrected about their contradictory assertions. It seems from that piece though, that they were trying to downplay the prospect of gene flow from the Nile Valley in however way they could - e.g. resorting to the trivial issue of which group might have gotten more Egyptian influence over whom. Risdon would however, be correct in the gene flow aspect of his assessment.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
....ancient Israelites comprised of immigrants from the Nile Valley ...
Evergreen Writes:
1. What is your source for this claim?
Much of claims about Israelite history comes from Biblical accounts. And so, this history must use Biblical accounts and try to reconcile them with archaeological finds. Bio-anthropology may also come in handy.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
2. Where did they migrate from in the Nile Valley?
3. When did they enter the Nile Valley and from where?
4. When did they migrate out of the Nile Valley and into the Delta of Egypt?
5. When did they migrate out of Egypt?
From the Merneptah Stele, courtesy of James P. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures vol. 2 (1958), we have:
The princes are prostrate, saying: “Mercy!” No one raises his head among the Nine Bows. Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti is pacified; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt! All lands together, they are pacified; Everyone who was restless, he had been bound.
President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York Gary Greenberg’s take on this, is as follows:
“A curious feature of this inscription is that Israel is the only name with a grammatical determinative signifying people instead of land. To almost all biblical scholars the grammar suggests that here we have a picture of ancient Israel in its post-Exodus, pre-Conquest stage. This discovery caused quite a shock to the academic world of 1896, the year in which the monument was discovered. At that time most biblical and Egyptological scholars identified Merneptah as the pharaoh of the Exodus. On this new evidence historians had to date the even to an earlier time…
The inscription does not tell us what language Israel spoke, but it does imply that Israel, despite its lack of identification with a specific territory, stood as a powerful military force. The text places it among several major political entities. (Hatti was the Hittite Kingdom; Hurru was the Hurrian kingdom; Ashkelon and Gezer were two of the most substantial city-states in Canaan.) The context suggests that it wouldn’t have been listed if it hadn’t been thought worthy of mention as a defeated force. Its presence as a large powerful force without a territory of its own suggests that this Israel came from somewhere else.
It could not have arrived there much earlier than the middle of the reign of Ramesses II, otherwise it would likely have been identified with the territory where it was found. This suggests it arrived within forty years of the death of Horemheb, a time frame that would be consistent with both the biblical claim that Israel entered Canaan about forty years after the Exodus and the Atenist theory that the Exodus occurred shortly after the death of Horemheb.
It is also interesting that the very first mention of the name Israel occurs in Egyptian writing; it does not appear again in the historical record for almost four hundred years afterward.…
…Patriarchal history draws upon Egyptian mythology. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their key family members correspond to a family of popular Egyptian deities associated with the Egyptian god Osiris. Most of the events depicted in the patriarchal accounts come directly from Egyptian literary sources and themes, and I will examine the precise mythological incidents that gave rise to the biblical sources. If this evidence is as obvious as I suggest, the reader may well be tempted to ask why biblical scholars and Egyptologists failed to uncover these connections. There are a number of reasons for such oversights.
When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the people brought with them the many stories about Egyptian gods and goddesses, stories they believed to be true histories of their country. But because the Israelites were militantly monotheistic, with a strong prejudice against the god Osiris, the deities were transformed into human ancestors. As with any immigrant group, after centuries of immersion in new cultures and surroundings, the settlers adopted the traditions and beliefs of their new neighbors, often integrating their old beliefs with the newly learned traditions. And as the biblical prophets make clear, over and over, Canaanite culture exerted a mighty force over the Israelites.
The Egyptian deities, already transformed from gods to heroic human ancestors, came to look less and less like Egyptians and more and more like Canaanites. Atenist religious views melded with local traditions. Over the centuries numerous political and religious feuds developed, and old stories were retold in order to favor one group over another. Then came conquest and destruction. Most of Israel disappeared from history after the Assyrian conquests. Those Israelites remaining were captured by Babylon and force-fed Babylonian culture and history. Shortly thereafter, the Hebrews were liberated from Babylon by the Persians, and close culture contact between the two nations existed.
In the morass of conflict, Israel lost touch with its Egyptian roots. By the time modern scholars came to review its history, the long religiously orthodox image of Israel as firmly rooted among Semitic tribes wandering in Canaan and Mesopotamia was fixed in the Western mind. Biblical scholars saw no need to apply to Egypt the scholarly intensity of research reserved for the Semitic world. Israel was Canaanite. Biblical history was assumed true, at least in its outline. That the biblical scribes and redactors could have committed such a major error in location never entered the biblical mind.” - Greenberg, The African Origins of the Jewish People, 1996
BTW Gary Greenberg, based on status of evidence at the time of his writing this piece back in the mid-90s, doesn't believe that the original Israelite immigrants from Kemet spoke a Semitic language, but believes this came about later on, when they co-habited with the in situ populations of the Levant. It must be noted though, we know from recent discovery, specifically in 1998, "proto-Sinaitic" or "proto-Canaanite" type scriptures were found in Upper Egypt, showing that it was developed from hieroglyphics. Of course, this doesn't necessarily prove that Semitic speaking folks developed it, but that people who used it in Egypt, took it with them to the Levant.
1) Where do you assume the "ancient Israelites" came from, if not ultimately formed by immigrants from the Nile Valley who cohabited with in situ Levantine inhabitants, by the 13th century B.C.?
2)When did they get there?
3)What evidence do you have about their existence that suggests that they lived as disparate but contemporaneous society with the predynastic and/or 1st Dynastic Egyptians?
Will do for now, pending your responses.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Now, questions for you
Evergreen Writes:
I will answer your questions when you give me a straight forward answer to mine. Mystery, psuedo-science and myth (the Bible) does not count.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Risdon’s work (1939) is the only study that examines the Lachish series as its major focus. Using metric variables in the now credited Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.)
Evergreen Writes:
I assume you meant to say the DISCREDITED Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.). I am not sure what value a discredited study brings to this question?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Now, questions for you
Evergreen Writes:
I will answer your questions when you give me a straight forward answer to mine.
Have you not read my responses? Tell me why they are not straight.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Mystery, psuedo-science and myth (the Bible) does not count.
I agree. Perhaps you can point out which aspects of my post above are pseudo-science and why, and then provide your material to the contrary.
Please, do answer my questions; it is what helps nurture a civil discourse. You don't have to wait, as answers to your questions in no way relieve you from your obligation to answer the questions asked of you. Doing so, would be a copout.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[QUOTE]Risdon’s work (1939) is the only study that examines the Lachish series as its major focus. Using metric variables in the now credited Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.)
Evergreen Writes:
I assume you meant to say the DISCREDITED Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.). I am not sure what value a discredited study brings to this question?
Thanks for the correction of the typo; I hand-copied the piece from a pdf file. If you don't know why the piece was posted, which has nothing to do with what you just cited, then you must not have read the post you took it from. Can't help you, if that's the case.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Have you not read my responses? Tell me why they are not straight.
Evergreen Writes:
Your cut and paste was unnesessarily wordy. My take-away is thus:
1. What is your source for this claim (....ancient Israelites comprised of immigrants from the Nile Valley ...)?
MS Answer: The Bible told me so.
2. Where did they migrate from in the Nile Valley?
MS Answer: Upper Egypt based upon the discredited C.R.L.
3. When did they enter the Nile Valley and from where?
MS Answer: NONE
4. When did they migrate out of the Nile Valley and into the Delta of Egypt?
MS Answer: NONE
5. When did they migrate out of Egypt?
MS Answer: NONE
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Thanks for the correction of the typo; I hand-copied the piece from a pdf file. If you don't know why the piece was posted, which has nothing to do with what you just cited, then you must not have read the post you took it from. Can't help you, if that's the case.
Evergreen Writes:
You are correct. I do not know why this discredited study is still being circulated. You cannot help me with this type of source material.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Have you not read my responses? Tell me why they are not straight.
Evergreen Writes:
Your cut and paste was unnesessarily wordy.
Wordy? Possibly. Unnecessary? Not so - pending explanation to the contrary.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
My take-away is thus:
1. What is your source for this claim (....ancient Israelites comprised of immigrants from the Nile Valley ...)?
If you have to ask, then you must not have read my post.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
MS Answer: The Bible told me so.
That's a lie, and I don't think I have to demonstrate why.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
2. Where did they migrate from in the Nile Valley?
MS Answer: Upper Egypt based upon the discredited C.R.L.
Another lie. Moving to next one...
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
3. When did they enter the Nile Valley and from where?
MS Answer: NONE
4. When did they migrate out of the Nile Valley and into the Delta of Egypt?
MS Answer: NONE
5. When did they migrate out of Egypt?
MS Answer: NONE
Your imiginary "MS Answers" only speaks of three things:
1)You are too lazy to read.
2)Can't confront the answers given.
3)Don't have a shred of material to the contrary, and are unable to answer what was asked of you.
That just about sums it up, doesn't it Evergreen?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Evergreen Writes:
Is there **ANYONE** who can provide crisp and concise proof that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people? No cut and pastes, no long-winded diatribes, no Biblical quotes, no out of date racial studies, just the facts....please.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Thanks for the correction of the typo; I hand-copied the piece from a pdf file. If you don't know why the piece was posted, which has nothing to do with what you just cited, then you must not have read the post you took it from. Can't help you, if that's the case.
Evergreen Writes:
You are correct. I do not know why this discredited study is still being circulated. You cannot help me with this type of source material.
I'm wondering if you were fully conscious when you wrote this response, but man, I don't have the slightest clue what it has to do with what you're citing.
Firstly, the citation isn't from Risdon's work; it is Keita's study, assessing his predecessors on the subject.
Secondly, Keita's assessment hasn't been descredited.
Thirdly, as I was telling you in what you just cited, you don't seem to be taking the Keita extract for what it was cited, but rather, deriving some irrelevant yet-to-be-discern significance from the tiny piece of the greater extract, which was not the emphasis of the citation to begin with.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
Is there **ANYONE** who can provide crisp and concise proof that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people? No cut and pastes, no long-winded diatribes, no Biblical quotes, no out of date racial studies, just the facts....please.
I understand your frustration; it is easier to place blame elsewhere, when the fault lies on the level of zeal and effort you put into reading what you've been provided. Your copout plea is duly noted.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Since Evergreen was unable to get it, I'll lay out what I got from the citations I posted.
1)The Bible is only used to the extent that this is the main source from which ancient Isrealite history is told, but these Biblical accounts are correlated with archaeological finds, since the latter cannot be myth; rather, it can be used to either act as a buttress or a refutation tool of Biblical accounts.
-This is NOT one and same as someone saying that one is relying on Biblical account as THE means of reconstructing the history of Israelites. Biblical accounts cannot however be ignored under multidisciplinary consideration, simply put, because it constitutes THE only *written* account of Israelite history stretching back to timeframes when NO written evidence speaks of 'Yisrael'.
2)The ancient Israelites were a confederation of newly arrived Nile Valley immigrants and in situ Levantines that they came across in their new found location.
- Evidence of this comes from the fact, that outside of Biblical account, 'Yisrael' appears for the first time in Egyptian archaeological record, in the late 13th century B.C. on the Merneptah Stele; nowhere else outside of the Nile Valley, does this name appear before, during, and after - until "almost 400 years later".
3)Since the said Nile Valley migrants would have been Egyptians, there would be no need to inquire about when they entered the Nile Valley. Anyone who feels the need to do so, might want to ask themselves about when the proto-Egyptians entered the Nile Valley.
- As noted above, the "Yisrealites" suddenly appeared in the late 13th century B.C. - not before then. One would expect some clue from people in a region where writing was available, to mention something about a people named "Yisrael', if they were a society outside the Nile Valley but were contemporaneous with early Dynastic Egyptians through to the late Dynastic times. Certainly, their mention on the Merneptah Stele shows that the "Yisrael" were worth being noticed - so why no records [not even in the Levant] of them anywhere until then?
4)If they were holdouts of the Atenist belief system and were hence, political dissident holdouts in the Rameside Dynasty, even forty years after Horemheb's death, then they could have come from just about any section of the Egyptian general society. So the question of whether they were from upper or lower Egypt need not have to apply.
4)They must have migrated some time in the late 14th century B.C. in the Rameside era. We know this again, from the Menerptah stele:
A curious feature of this inscription is that Israel is the only name with a grammatical determinative signifying people instead of land. To almost all biblical scholars the grammar suggests that here we have a picture of ancient Israel in its post-Exodus, pre-Conquest stage. This discovery caused quite a shock to the academic world of 1896, the year in which the monument was discovered. At that time most biblical and Egyptological scholars identified Merneptah as the pharaoh of the Exodus. On this new evidence historians had to date the even to an earlier time…
The inscription does not tell us what language Israel spoke, but it does imply that Israel, despite its lack of identification with a specific territory, stood as a powerful military force. The text places it among several major political entities. (Hatti was the Hittite Kingdom; Hurru was the Hurrian kingdom; Ashkelon and Gezer were two of the most substantial city-states in Canaan.) The context suggests that it wouldn’t have been listed if it hadn’t been thought worthy of mention as a defeated force. Its presence as a large powerful force without a territory of its own suggests that this Israel came from somewhere else
It could not have arrived there much earlier than the middle of the reign of Ramesses II, otherwise it would likely have been identified with the territory where it was found. This suggests it arrived within forty years of the death of Horemheb, a time frame that would be consistent with both the biblical claim that Israel entered Canaan about forty years after the Exodus and the Atenist theory that the Exodus occurred shortly after the death of Horemheb. - Gary Greenberg
On the other hand, if you're looking for the whereabouts of Evergreen's material about where and when he suggests the ancient Isrealites came about outside of the Nile Valley, don't hold your breath.
In the meantime, back to the intro topic:
It is an interesting revelation, which may not be exactly what advocates of "the world-wide spawned international ancient Egyptian society" would like to hear - that predynastic Lower Egyptians were no less authentically African as their southern counterparts.
Ps - Charles, if you happen to have a file on the study, keep me posted.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
^ Excellent citation Charles.
I have no idea why and important biological affinities study on Lower Egyptians turns into a dabate about Isrealites.
This blows a whole in the attempt to evade the Africaness and Blackness of the Kemetians via the - lower Egyptians were "mulatoes" claim.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Does it? Says who? You? I've quoted Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer's statement that Shem was blessed black and beautiful. You have never cited any Hebrew text in support of your opinion. Can you cite a Hebrew document with the word dusky in it? And please spare us Frank Zappa as the pristine Hebrew phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: Claiming the Israelites were black goes against how they described their own skin color---that is, dusky and tanned.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Alive-(What Box), all "clowning" aside the point is there is a real Black history we find in Ancient Egypt. Eurocentrists have a vested interest in seperating Black people from their historic past in North Africa. The White Power Structure is based upon the false teaching that White people founded what we call civilization. It is obvious that what we call civilization is based and rooted in North Africa. North Africa was originally inhabited by Black people at the time so-called civilized society began. Hence they are forced to create a fictious history of ancient White North Africans. Black people have responded with the truth in our history.
Yes
quote: But they try and negate this response by making our argument seem fringe and psuedo-scientific. Hence, we have a duty to expose the psuedo-scientists in our community who are like Trojan Horses, destroying our credibility from within. This goes for blatant psuedo-scientists like Marc Washington or psuedo-scientists such as alTakruri who garb their psuedo-science in anthropological rhetoric.
Like your Octoroon Cleopatra?
Yup, I've understood this for some time.
quote:The Blackness of the late bronze age Levant is not proven by a few images of miscontextualized bearded Assyrian images.
1. Those images may be Egyptians or Kushities stationed in Lachish.
2. Even if these images were of Judahians, this in no way implies that these images are reflective of the entire population of Judah and Israel as a whole. They may be images of men who were BOTH Egyptian/Kushite and Judahian. We know that Egypt/Kush governed this region, hence it is possible that Egyptian/Kushites married into the Judahian elite. The average Judahian would look no more like this elite image than the average Egyptian looked like the light-skinned Egyptian elite sons of SW Asian women and Africa men in the New Kingdom paintings.
You make a very good point.
The beards don't moot the possibility of them being Egyptians/Kushites stationed in Lachish.
Thing is, we can't be so wary of deceptionists' tactics that we loose ourselves, and concede to them on any matter that we fear my make us look foolish.
What evidence do we have that late Bronze age Levant/South West Asia had a homogenous non-melinated population for the most part, and that this pattern was consistant in the Judahite population?
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
^ Excellent citation Charles.
I have no idea why and important biological affinities study on Lower Egyptians turns into a dabate about Isrealites.
This blows a whole in the attempt to evade the Africaness and Blackness of the Kemetians via the - lower Egyptians were "mulatoes" claim.
Oh my god, I just read [actually read] the title of the thread again.
You're right.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
I don't know what does the "blackness" of Israelite have to do with this thread. I wasn't even raising this question an quite frankly who cares?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: I don't know what does the "blackness" of Israelite have to do with this thread. I wasn't even raising this question an quite frankly who cares?
Evergreen Writes:
Any reasonable person who wants to understand the biological affinities of LBA Lower Egyptians would care.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: I don't know what does the "blackness" of Israelite have to do with this thread. I wasn't even raising this question an quite frankly who cares?
Evergreen Writes:
Any reasonable person who wants to understand the biological affinities of LBA Lower Egyptians would care.
Again, I don't see the reason for this, the predynastic Lower Egyptians were more akin to their southern brethern than to Levantine peoples of the same age and only the Late dynastic Lower Egyptians show a cline away from their southern bretern and those samples are simply mercenaries or the product mixing in the north from outside populations. Again, I don't understand what do Israelites have to do with this and whether they were black or not.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: The Bible is only used to the extent that this is the main source from which ancient Isrealite history is told
Evergreen Writes:
The Bible is NOT history, it is mythology. In addition one can not pick and chose or cherry-pick with the Bible. The ancient Jews according to the Bible descend from a Mesopatamian named Abraham. Mesopotamians were Eurasian.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: The ancient Israelites were a confederation of newly arrived Nile Valley immigrants and in situ Levantines that they came across in their new found location.
Evergreen Writes:
This may be the case, but these newly arrived “Nile Valley” immigrants were descendents of the Eurasian tribes that migrated from the Levant into the Nile Valley before this back migration to their Eurasian homeland.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Since the said Nile Valley migrants would have been Egyptians, there would be no need to inquire about when they entered the Nile Valley.
Evergreen Writes:
What evidence do you have that these migrants to the Levant were primarily of Ancient Egyptian lineage genetically? Especially given their own mythology which traces their pre-Egyptian origin to Mesopatamia.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QUOTE]Again, I don't understand what do Israelites have to do with this and whether they were black or not.
Evergreen Writes:
One is required to study the biological affinities of early, middle and late Bronze Age Levantine populations to understand the context of the populations of Lower Egypt during the pre and dynastic era. In fact one would want to understand the biological affinities of the southern Levant from the Mesolithic to the Roman era to truly understand the position of Lower Egyptians within the cultural spheres of NE Africa and SW Asia. My assumption was that the implicit meaning behind your query was to contextualize the biological affinities of Lower Egypt, not simply study a static snap-shot in time.
If we simply studied the pre-dynastic Lower Egyptians in isolation we would be unaware of the fact that Egypt was a African nation from the proto-Dynastic to the Late Kingdom.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QUOTE]....the predynastic Lower Egyptians were more akin to their southern brethern than to Levantine peoples of the same age and only the Late dynastic Lower Egyptians show a cline away from their southern bretern and those samples are simply mercenaries or the product mixing in the north from outside populations.
Evergreen Writes:
This seems logical and corresponds with the fact that the LBA southern Levantine populations were of a primarily Eurasian background, hence the influence in the North.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:the predynastic Lower Egyptians were more akin to their southern brethern than to Levantine peoples of the same age
Agree.
This is also consistent with the Narmer Palette, and it's document of the founding of dynastic Kemet, and the expulsion of the Asiatic [Aamu] who are ethnically distinguished from the Km.t. Rm.t
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
AGAIN -DIOP- was right:
Lower Egypt, archeological diggings dating back to the predynas-tic have failed to uncover the existence of a White type.
The Whites of Lower Egypt were transplanted there at a well-known, precise historical epoch; it was during the Nineteenth Dynasty, under Merneptah (1300 B.C.), that the coalition of Indo-Europeans (peoples of the sea) was conquered; the survivors were taken prisoner and scattered over the Pharaoh's various construction sites. Between 1300 and 500 B.C., these populations had time to spread from the Western Delta to the outskirts of Carthage. In Book II of his History, Herodotus explains how they were distributed along the coast. Consequently, when Coon speaks of Whites inhabiting Lower Egypt, his statement is not based on any document. It would even remain to be proved that Lower Egypt existed as inhabitable terra firma in remote times. - Diop. http://www.marcusgarvey.com/wmprint.php?ArtID=560 Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: AGAIN -DIOP- was right:
Lower Egypt, archeological diggings dating back to the predynas-tic have failed to uncover the existence of a White type.
The Whites of Lower Egypt were transplanted there at a well-known, precise historical epoch; it was during the Nineteenth Dynasty, under Merneptah (1300 B.C.), that the coalition of Indo-Europeans (peoples of the sea) was conquered; the survivors were taken prisoner and scattered over the Pharaoh's various construction sites. Between 1300 and 500 B.C., these populations had time to spread from the Western Delta to the outskirts of Carthage. In Book II of his History, Herodotus explains how they were distributed along the coast. Consequently, when Coon speaks of Whites inhabiting Lower Egypt, his statement is not based on any document. It would even remain to be proved that Lower Egypt existed as inhabitable terra firma in remote times. - Diop. http://www.marcusgarvey.com/wmprint.php?ArtID=560
Evergreen Writes:
Indeed, ecological changes in Central Asia may have impacted the Southern Cradle areas. Hyksos in Egypt, Hitties in Mesopatamia, so-called Aryans in the Mohenjo-Darro/Harrapan.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ....the survivors were taken prisoner and scattered over the Pharaoh's various construction sites.
Evergreen Writes:
As these Central Asian wanderers migrated south into the Fertile Crescent they would have adopted the languages of the East and West Ethiopians (Semites and Sumerian/Elamites). By the time this back-migration reached Egypt we would see an amalgam of Semitic speaking Eurasians. The Egyptians put these Semitic speakers to work in the Upper Egyptian Eastern Desert where we see the development of a practical alphabet.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
The Bible is only used to the extent that this is the main source from which ancient Isrealite history is told
Evergreen Writes:
The Bible is NOT history, it is mythology. In addition one can not pick and chose or cherry-pick with the Bible. The ancient Jews according to the Bible descend from a Mesopatamian named Abraham. Mesopotamians were Eurasian.
Evergreen, do you know how to read? If so, then please re-read the *entire piece* you're citing that cherry-picked piece from. Trust me, it will make understanding better.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
The ancient Israelites were a confederation of newly arrived Nile Valley immigrants and in situ Levantines that they came across in their new found location.
Evergreen Writes:
This may be the case, but these newly arrived “Nile Valley” immigrants were descendents of the Eurasian tribes that migrated from the Levant into the Nile Valley before this back migration to their Eurasian homeland.
When did they arrive in the Nile Valley and when did they leave, and why? Don't forget to mention what you are basing this on.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Since the said Nile Valley migrants would have been Egyptians, there would be no need to inquire about when they entered the Nile Valley
Evergreen Writes:
What evidence do you have that these migrants to the Levant were primarily of Ancient Egyptian lineage genetically? Especially given their own mythology which traces their pre-Egyptian origin to Mesopatamia.
E3b lineages still persist in the region genetically speaking. You're funny; one minute you proclaim that you cannot take into consideration Biblical claims, because you dismiss it entirely as mythology, and then the next minute, you try to use it as something that needs to be taken into consideration when looking at their origins.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
Again, I don't see the reason for this, the predynastic Lower Egyptians were more akin to their southern brethern than to Levantine peoples of the same age
Yes, and even Evergreen would see both this and the irrelevancy of ancient Israelites - no evidence of whom exists in the time in question, if he had bothered to read:
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
The only question that one might possibly ask at this point, is one that I had asked earlier but went on unanswered: How "early" were the timeframes determined for the specimens from the Palestinian region, according to the study in question?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]When did they arrive in the Nile Valley and when did they leave, and why? Don't forget to mention what you are basing this on.
Evergreen Writes:
1.Eurasians are the indigenous people of the Levant following the LGM.
2.Natufians were a mixture of migrating Neolithic Africans and indigenous pre-LGM Eurasians.
3.The Levant was within the Mesopotamian sphere of influence by the EBA.
4.Central Asian migrant groups began to penetrate Lower and Middle Egypt by the early New Kingdom.
5.**IF** and this is a big **IF** the original Jews were a group of Egyptians from Middle Egypt they certainly were heterogenous with a substantial “Asiatic” component.
6.**IF**, based upon your Egyptian Migration Theory they left Egypt and entered the Levant circa 1300BC there was a three-hundred year period of these hetergenous Middle Egyptians living and intermmarying with the Eurasian people of southern Levant before the rise of a unified kingdom under Saul. These “Egyptians” would have practiced exogamy in line with over three thousand years of Egyptian history.
7.Based upon this model it is hard to imagine the Israelities and Judahians as being primarily African.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[QUOTE]When did they arrive in the Nile Valley and when did they leave, and why? Don't forget to mention what you are basing this on.
Evergreen Writes:
1.Eurasians are the indigenous people of the Levant following the LGM.
And?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
2.Natufians were a mixture of migrating Neolithic Africans and indigenous pre-LGM Eurasians.
Okay...?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
3.The Levant was within the Mesopotamian sphere of influence by the EBA.
Proximity would make that obvious, and?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
4.Central Asian migrant groups began to penetrate Lower and Middle Egypt by the early New Kingdom.
And these would be the group called...?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
5.**IF** and this is a big **IF** the original Jews were a group of Egyptians from Middle Egypt they certainly were heterogenous with a substantial “Asiatic” component.
I'm not interested in "big IFs"; I'm interested in what you can prove with EVIDENCE.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
6.**IF**, based upon your Egyptian Migration Theory they left Egypt and entered the Levant circa 1300BC there was a three-hundred year period of these hetergenous Middle Egyptians living and intermmarying with the Eurasian people of southern Levant before the rise of a unified kingdom under Saul.
Let me stop you right there; you're questioning my claims and misinterpreting them earlier, were you not? So, why are you even considering anything I said; this is about your material to the contrary, right? If so, well then, lets get on with that.
Ps - and you got it wrong, again evident that you don't carefully read what I post; They likely arrived in the Levant sometime in the late 14th century BC, not 13th century BC. The 13th BC simply gives us an idea about what socio-political status underlay the "Yisrael" at the time of their mention on the Merneptah Stele - that is all.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
These “Egyptians” would have practiced exogamy in line with over three thousand years of Egyptian history.
7.Based upon this model it is hard to imagine the Israelities and Judahians as being primarily African.
Strawman. You've been told that Israelites as a social entity, only came to being after 'orthodox' Atenist migrants from the Nile Valley cohabited with in situ Levantine groups - what part of that, do you interpret as "the Israelites and Judahians being primarily African"?
When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the people brought with them the many stories about Egyptian gods and goddesses, stories they believed to be true histories of their country. But because the Israelites were militantly monotheistic, with a strong prejudice against the god Osiris, the deities were transformed into human ancestors. As with any immigrant group, after centuries of immersion in new cultures and surroundings, the settlers adopted the traditions and beliefs of their new neighbors, often integrating their old beliefs with the newly learned traditions. And as the biblical prophets make clear, over and over, Canaanite culture exerted a mighty force over the Israelites. - G. Greenberg
^ hence giving them [Israelites] their distinct 'monotheistic' spiritual beliefs formed in Egypt but at the same time influenced by the Levantine counterparts. Needless to say, this would only go to show how irrelevant ancient Israelites are, as a disparate Levantine social entity, to predynastic Lower Egyptians, as it did not even exist then!
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]You've been told that Israelites as a social entity, only came to being after 'orthodox' Atenist migrants from the Nile Valley cohabited with in situ Levantine groups - what part of that, do you interpret as "the Israelites and Judahians being primarily African"?
Evergreen Writes:
None. It sounds like you are saying that they were not. But then again one is hard pressed to get a crisp, concise response from you. I eagerly await your next round of long-winded gibberish. Sometimes more is less.....
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[QUOTE]You've been told that Israelites as a social entity, only came to being after 'orthodox' Atenist migrants from the Nile Valley cohabited with in situ Levantine groups - what part of that, do you interpret as "the Israelites and Judahians being primarily African"?
Evergreen Writes:
None. It sounds like you are saying that they were not. But then again one is hard pressed to get a crisp, concise response from you.
Exactly, and this is the same careless in your reading with which you make logic-free claims like this:
I eagerly await your next round of long-winded gibberish. Sometimes more is less..... - Evergreen.
What makes my concise posts, which I had to unnecessarily reiterate time and again into pieces because you're too careless to read, gibberish; is it because 1)you don't know how to read, 2)cannot offer objective material to the contrary, or 3) both? I'm under the impression that the answer is #3.
Ps - The Isrealites were a social confederation of Nile Valley migrants and in situ Levantine inhabitants, where these Nile Valley migrants were obviously a very influential component.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
I eagerly await your next round of long-winded gibberish. Sometimes more is less....
I await your answer - to justify what you call "gibberish" [as questioned above] - that will actually be anything intelligent. I'll likely die holding my breath for one though.
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]You've been told that Israelites as a social entity, only came to being after 'orthodox' Atenist migrants from the Nile Valley cohabited with in situ Levantine groups - what part of that, do you interpret as "the Israelites and Judahians being primarily African"?
Evergreen Writes:
None. It sounds like you are saying that they were not. But then again one is hard pressed to get a crisp, concise response from you. I eagerly await your next round of long-winded gibberish. Sometimes more is less.....
Lol, I doubt you will get one because that chick is very scatter brained and silly Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]When did they arrive in the Nile Valley and when did they leave, and why? Don't forget to mention what you are basing this on.
Evergreen Writes:
1.Eurasians are the indigenous people of the Levant following the LGM.
2.Natufians were a mixture of migrating Neolithic Africans and indigenous pre-LGM Eurasians.
3.The Levant was within the Mesopotamian sphere of influence by the EBA.
4.Central Asian migrant groups began to penetrate Lower and Middle Egypt by the early New Kingdom.
5.**IF** and this is a big **IF** the original Jews were a group of Egyptians from Middle Egypt they certainly were heterogenous with a substantial “Asiatic” component.
6.**IF**, based upon your Egyptian Migration Theory they left Egypt and entered the Levant circa 1300BC there was a three-hundred year period of these hetergenous Middle Egyptians living and intermmarying with the Eurasian people of southern Levant before the rise of a unified kingdom under Saul. These “Egyptians” would have practiced exogamy in line with over three thousand years of Egyptian history.
7.Based upon this model it is hard to imagine the Israelities and Judahians as being primarily African.
Almost everything here sounds like a big IF and none of it corresponds with the facts posted earlier. Namely, this does not correspond with the remains from Lacish and other evidences posted earlier by Al Takrur. While I don't doubt the Eurasian component of the peoples in this region, that does not discount the historical presence of African lineages in this region which predates the Northern Eurasian lines.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[QUOTE]You've been told that Israelites as a social entity, only came to being after 'orthodox' Atenist migrants from the Nile Valley cohabited with in situ Levantine groups - what part of that, do you interpret as "the Israelites and Judahians being primarily African"? [/qb]
Evergreen Writes:
None. It sounds like you are saying that they were not. But then again one is hard pressed to get a crisp, concise response from you. I eagerly await your next round of long-winded gibberish. Sometimes more is less.....
Lol, I doubt you will get one because that chick is very scatter brained and silly
d*ck sucking dyke, do you have anyway of refuting anything I've posted? If not, f*ck off, will ya. Thanx.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]While I don't doubt the Eurasian component of the peoples in this region, that does not discount the historical presence of African lineages in this region which predates the Northern Eurasian lines.
Evergreen Writes:
But that's just it Doug, the African lineages do **NOT** predate the Eurasian lineages in the Levant. The Bronze Age people of the Levant descend, in the main (primary descent) from the Upper Paleolithic Eurasian populations exemplified by the Ohallo II archaeological complex. The Bronze Age people of the Nile Valley descend, in the main (primary descent) from the LSA African populations exemplified by the Wadi Kubbaniya archaeological complex. Yes, there was small-scale migration of Eurasians into the Nile Valley, but the primary base origin of the Ancient Egyptians was African. Yes, there was a larger migration of Africans into the southern Levant during the Natufian phase, but the primary base origin of the Ancient Israelites and Judahians was Eurasian.
Reverse demic-diffusion of wandering paleolithic Caucasoids into NE Africa is just as bad a Neolithic Saharan Mandingo's into Sumeria, sailing Wolof's entering and establishing the Olmec culture or a **MASS MIGRATION** of segregation practicing Egypto-Jews into the LBA Southern Levant....just as bad.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:But that's just it Doug, the African lineages do **NOT** predate the Eurasian lineages in the Levant. The Bronze Age people of the Levant descend, in the main (primary descent) from the Upper Paleolithic Eurasian populations exemplified by the Ohallo II archaeological complex.
I understand what you're saying here.
Interestingly enough we had a similar discussion on the Nile Valley forum perhaps a year ago.
We were discussing the idea of U6 as Levatine vs. U6 as African.
I tried to relate the fact that U6 is rare in the Levant, and when found, appears to be largely in the form of U6a1.
Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement FROM East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. - Maca Mayer
Now, Mayer also claims that proto-U6 originated in the Levant 30 thousand years ago.
The problem is - there is no 'proto-U6' lineage in the Levant.
In fact the Levant is only posited because the oldest U6 lineages are found in Africa - and the Levant is the closet place to Africa - *that is not in Africa*. [smirk]
quote:Reverse demic-diffusion of wandering paleolithic Caucasoids into NE Africa is just as bad a Neolithic Saharan Mandingo's into Sumeria, sailing Wolof's entering and establishing the Olmec culture or a **MASS MIGRATION** of segregation practicing Egypto-Jews into the LBA Southern Levant....just as bad.
The 1st two points here are indisputable.
You'll have to clarify the last one though.
Do "Jews" exist prior to their soujourn in Egypt?
What defines Jew here? What is the origin of the Jews.?
Note: Questions are not rhetorical. I don't know Jewish history very well, so I am asking.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Do "Jews" exist prior to their soujourn in Egypt?What defines Jew here? What is the origin of the Jews.?
Evergreen Writes:
I can accept the cultural component of Mystery Solvers "Moses and Monotheism" argument. One could support a Jewish identity with the formation of a unified kingdom under Saul. However, if we used MS' Egypto-Jew theory we would have to acknowledge that the ~1,000 years between 1900 BC (?) when the "First Jews" left Africa/Egypt and 1000BC (?) when the first unified "Jewish" state was formed these people were indigenous SW Asians and not African.
This small group of possible African Aten worshippers would have logically been absorbed by the dominant Eurasian gene pool that surrounded them.
I acknowledge the fact that there was a African component then as there is now. But these people were not primarily African/Black.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I think we agree here.
I agree also with AlTakruri is on the idea that UP Levantine is in some respects African by affinity.
For example, I propose - in accord with Keita hypothesis - that in between African L3 and African L3xU6, we have various populations criss crossing from NorthEast Africa to SouthWest Asia, such that it may be difficult - if not impossible to clearly delineate concurrent lineages such as N1, and U.
For example, maybe N1 originates in Africa, U in SouthWest Asia, and U6 again in Africa.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I agree also with AlTakruri is on the idea that UP Levantine is in some respects African by affinity.
Evergreen Writes:
The Grimaldi Man of Europe was also African by affinity. But at some point within the UP the UP man of Europe and Levant evolved distinct genetic, psyiological and cultural characteristics. Understanding this chronology is crucial to establsihing a context for NE African civilization.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Evergreen Writes:
Holliday's 2000 study on limb-attenuation in the Levant found the Ohalo II **AND** Natufian to cluster nearer to cold-adapted Neanderthals than the tropically adapted Qafzeh-Skhul. This is consistent with the brachycephalic cranial indice noted in Ohalo II remains.
The cold-adaptation of the Natufian with African derived cranio-facial morphology and a **broader** nasal indice than preceeding Ohalo II crania are indicative of cross-breeding and absorbtion as noted by Diop and CL Brace.
In Europe and the Levant the differentiator may be the Early UP verus the Late UP where we see more cold-adapted traits in these regions.
American Anthropologist March 2000, Vol. 102, No. 1, pp. 54-68 T Holliday
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Holliday's 2000 study on limb-attenuation in the Levant found the Ohalo II **AND** Natufian to cluster nearer to cold-adapted Neanderthals than the tropically adapted Qafzeh-Skhul. This is consistent with the brachycephalic cranial indice noted in Ohalo II remains.
The cold-adaptation of the Natufian with African derived cranio-facial morphology and a **broader** nasal indice than preceeding Ohalo II crania are indicative of cross-breeding and absorbtion as noted by Diop and CL Brace.
In Europe and the Levant the differentiator may be the Early UP verus the Late UP where we see more cold-adapted traits in these regions.
American Anthropologist March 2000, Vol. 102, No. 1, pp. 54-68 T Holliday
Evergreen Writes:
Further to this point, the scatter plot of first and second principal component scores (Figure 1) indicates that the Ohalo II remains have greater cold adaptation than the Natufian remains who plot within the cold-adapted sphere, yet near the centroid plot. The convergence upon the centroid plot by the Natufian is indicative of cross-breeding by African migrants and indigenous Eurasians during the early Neolithic. One would not expect the Natufians to be more tropically adapted than their Ohalo II ancestors following the arid and cold LGM unless there was cross-breeding.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
Brace et al
"The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained."
Evergreen Writes:
From this in situ Eurasian base we would see the evolution of LBA Israel and Judah. Culturally in part rooted in Africa, biologically primarily Eurasian by the formation of Saul's kingdom.
Please end psuedo-science!!!!!!!
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]Evergreen Writes:
I can accept the cultural component of Mystery Solvers "Moses and Monotheism" argument. One could support a Jewish identity with the formation of a unified kingdom under Saul. However, if we used MS' Egypto-Jew theory we would have to acknowledge that the ~1,000 years between 1900 BC (?) when the "First Jews" left Africa/Egypt and 1000BC (?) when the first unified "Jewish" state was formed these people were indigenous SW Asians and not African.
This small group of possible African Aten worshippers would have logically been absorbed by the dominant Eurasian gene pool that surrounded them.
I acknowledge the fact that there was a African component then as there is now. But these people were not primarily African/Black.
Evergreen Writes:
Of course, Al or MS could claim that after ~1,000 years the Egypto-Jews were still African, even though they were surrounded by SW Asians. But I would ask, do they apply this same model to the small-scale migration of Eurasians into proto-Dynastic Egypt and would this not also imply that this small-scale migration would result in the Egyptians really being Eurasian?
I see an inconsistent application to their model.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The point is that the peoples identified in the bible from these periods were dispersed as a result of Babylonian invasions in the 6th century BC. On top of that, the tradition itself states that there were multiple tribes of "Israel" at the time, which could partly imply different peoples with various ethnic backgrounds. And these traditions also state quite clearly that some of these tribes were descendants of people clearly connected to Africa. Also, as I said earlier, the reliefs from Lachish show a people being conquered who were clearly not caucasian by any stretch of the imagination. All of these people were then wiped out, so to speak due to the actions of the Babylonians. Therefore, it is not quite correct to say that this entire region was simply "caucasian", because the evidence does not fit such a theory. More likely this region was populated by various types of people, with caucasian and African traits being found in good measure.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I just got done reading everything that was posted in this thread (woo!). Of course I can't help but notice how discussion has slightly veered off into biological affinities of Levantine folks instead of Lower Egyptians.
But let me first address the topic piece that Charles presented.
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
The source apparently points out that by skeletal proportions predynastic Lower Egyptians were Africans period. I take it this puts an end to all the speculation that predynastic Lower Egyptians were Asiatics or "Asiatic-mixed" people.
But then it states that Palestinian remains of the same period do not show such African or tropical proportions. It sounds fair enough for the time period. Although like Evergreen I do wish to see the actual peer-revied studies of contemporary Levantine remains.
Also, could the black appearance of Lachish people be due to peoples such as the Midianites and Kenites who were absorbed into Judah as per Hebrew texts???
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Do "Jews" exist prior to their soujourn in Egypt?What defines Jew here? What is the origin of the Jews.?
Evergreen Writes:
I can accept the cultural component of Mystery Solvers "Moses and Monotheism" argument.
Show me where "Moses" is mentioned in my post, lest you expose yourself as a shabby liar. You need to take 'reading 101', seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
One could support a Jewish identity with the formation of a unified kingdom under Saul. However, if we used MS' Egypto-Jew theory we would have to acknowledge that the ~1,000 years between 1900 BC (?) when the "First Jews" left Africa/Egypt and 1000BC (?) when the first unified "Jewish" state was formed these people were indigenous SW Asians and not African.
Rejected! Either you have an objectively backed up alternative, or you don't - but don't resort to intellectually regressive tactics of misreading what people post.
You have *no alternative*, and so, what do you do?
You simply grasp the straw line of proclaiming to concede to my thesis, hoping that you can convince *yourself* that you've evaded the obligation to provide your *own* material to the contrary, while injecting into it, fantastic imaginary timeframes of events not backed up by any evidence for your interjections.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
I acknowledge the fact that there was a African component then as there is now. But these people were not primarily African/Black.
Keep singing that strawman, but fact remains: Your need to compare "ancient Israelites" to predynastic Lower Egyptians is intellectually unsound.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]While I don't doubt the Eurasian component of the peoples in this region, that does not discount the historical presence of African lineages in this region which predates the Northern Eurasian lines.
Evergreen Writes:
But that's just it Doug, the African lineages do **NOT** predate the Eurasian lineages in the Levant. The Bronze Age people of the Levant descend, in the main (primary descent) from the Upper Paleolithic Eurasian populations exemplified by the Ohallo II archaeological complex. The Bronze Age people of the Nile Valley descend, in the main (primary descent) from the LSA African populations exemplified by the Wadi Kubbaniya archaeological complex. Yes, there was small-scale migration of Eurasians into the Nile Valley, but the primary base origin of the Ancient Egyptians was African. Yes, there was a larger migration of Africans into the southern Levant during the Natufian phase, but the primary base origin of the Ancient Israelites and Judahians was Eurasian.
That doesn't even make sense; if the ancient Israelites only came into being after migrants from the Nile Valley, which you proclaim to concede to, came to the Levant and formed this group, naturally as a social confederation with people they met in their new found Levantine territory, how can you say the "primary base origin of the Ancient Israelites" was "Eurasian"? The entity didn't exist until migrants from the Nile Valley came into the Levant to form it thereof.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
Of course, Al or MS could claim that after ~1,000 years the Egypto-Jews were still African, even though they were surrounded by SW Asians.
Getting high into a fantastic world about what someone *could* say but *did not say*, does you what good? How about refuting non-imaginary claims that have actually been posted, and answer the questions asked of you? That should be something you *could* do, if you put effort into it.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
But I would ask, do they apply this same model to the small-scale migration of Eurasians into proto-Dynastic Egypt and would this not also imply that this small-scale migration would result in the Egyptians really being Eurasian?
I would ask your imaginary buddies that question, as it pertains to nothing said herein.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
I see an inconsistent application to their model.
Finally, you are damn right; your *imaginations* are inconsistent with my model.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And these traditions also state quite clearly that some of these tribes were descendants of people clearly connected to Africa.
Evergreen Writes:
I have early on acknowledged that the people of Southern Levant were **clearly connected** with Africa. The people of NE Africa are **clearly connected** with the people of SW Asia. The point is by the time of the united kingdom under Saul, the people of Judah and Israel would be **primarily** Eurasian and not African
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Also, as I said earlier, the reliefs from Lachish show a people being conquered who were clearly not caucasian by any stretch of the imagination.
Evergreen Writes:
So are these images of people from Lachish a statistically significant example of the range of phenotypes present in all Judahian and Israelite cities at the time? Probably not!
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, it is not quite correct to say that this entire region was simply "caucasian", because the evidence does not fit such a theory.
Evergreen Writes:
I would agree. Which is why I never made that claim!
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also, could the black appearance of Lachish people be due to peoples such as the Midianites and Kenites who were absorbed into Judah as per Hebrew texts???
Evergreen Writes:
There is no substantive multidisciplinary data that indicates that the people of Lachish were primarily Black in appearance. There is data that a substantive minority had affinities with Nile Valley inhabitants. There is also solid data that implies a focus on captured Black inhabitants of Lachish by the Assyrians. Who these images reflect and what these images tell us about the broader population of Lachish is still in question. Unless one works with a loose set of standards.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
From this in situ Eurasian base we would see the evolution of LBA Israel and Judah. Culturally in part rooted in Africa, biologically primarily Eurasian by the formation of Saul's kingdom.
Please end psuedo-science!!!!!!!
What do you mean by *evolution* of LBA Israel; it suddenly appeared as a social entity in sometime around late 14th B.C.
And what concrete evidence are you going by for "Saul's kingdom" outside of the Bible, which you prohibit from examination, because it is supposed to be mythology?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]What do you mean by *evolution* of LBA Israel; it suddenly appeared as a social entity in sometime around late 14th B.C.
Evergreen Writes:
I am not sure what you mean by "social entity"? I am discussing the people of the **KINGDOMS** of Judah and Israel. What are you discussing? Please try and provide a concise answer.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
May I ask why the linked discussion - a perfectly legitimate one - has been deleted? This should prove as a warning sign that even this discussion, and anything else realated ancient Israelites, will eventually be deleted.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
What do you mean by *evolution* of LBA Israel; it suddenly appeared as a social entity in sometime around late 14th B.C.
Evergreen Writes:
I am not sure what you mean by "social entity"? I am discussing the people of the **KINGDOMS** of Judah and Israel. What are you discussing? Please try and provide a concise answer.
Simple: a society or a people. Now, stop beating around the bush and answer the question you're citing [highlighted], along with this one:
Re: And what concrete evidence are you going by for "Saul's kingdom" outside of the Bible, which you prohibit from examination, because it is supposed to be mythology?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:
Evergreen Writes:
I am not sure what you mean by "social entity"? I am discussing the people of the **KINGDOMS** of Judah and Israel. What are you discussing? Please try and provide a concise answer.
Simple: a society or a people. [/QUOTE]
Evergreen Writes:
The point is by the time Judah and Israel were historically documented "entities" the people had lived in the Levant ~ 1,000 years based upon your Aten worshipping Egyptian-Jew model. Hence **even** if they did dervive from the Nile Valley they would certainly be SW Asian by the time they reached a hisorically documented stage.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
The point is by the time Judah and Israel were historically documented "entities" the people had lived in the Levant ~ 1,000 years based upon your Aten worshipping Egyptian-Jew model. Hence **even** if they did dervive from the Nile Valley they would certainly be SW Asian by the time they reached a hisorically documented stage.
My question, which you keep running away from, is this: What "historical source" of these "documented entities" - particularly the Saul's kingdom that you mentioned - are you relying on, outside of the Bible, which you reject as a source for examination?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
The point is by the time Judah and Israel were historically documented "entities" the people had lived in the Levant ~ 1,000 years based upon your Aten worshipping Egyptian-Jew model. Hence **even** if they did dervive from the Nile Valley they would certainly be SW Asian by the time they reached a hisorically documented stage.
My question, which you keep running away from, is this: What "historical source" of these "documented entities" - particularly the Saul's kingdom that you mentioned - are you relying on, outside of the Bible, which you reject as a source for examination?
Evergreen Writes:
That's just it. I am **NOT** debating the origin of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. I am debating the biological affinities of these people once these kingdoms are historically documented. So I accept your position - these two kingdoms may have no true historic documentation until well after 1000 BC.
In fact, this only further validates my position, which is by the time there is historically verifiable evidence of any Kingdoms known as Judah and/or Israel the peoples of these Kingdoms had been resident in Eurasia for greater than 1,000 years (using your Aten worshipping Egypto-Jew model). To claim that a small group of hetergenous Nile Valley Aten worshippers migrated to Eurasia and lived in Eurasia for over 1,000 years without being biologcally impacted by the region and people surrounding them is far-fetched. Especially given the fact that Late Kingdom Dynastic Lower Egyptians were converging on Eurasian phenotypes by this time!
Get real!!!!!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
My question, which you keep running away from, is this: What "historical source" of these "documented entities" - particularly the Saul's kingdom that you mentioned - are you relying on, outside of the Bible, which you reject as a source for examination?
Evergreen Writes:
That's just it. I am **NOT** debating the origin of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
You mentioned Saul's Kingdom, as if it were a historical fact; what's your historical source outside the bible. No 'ifs' and 'buts', just answer the question.
quote:Originally posted Evergreen:
I am debating the biological affinities of these people once these kingdoms are historically documented. So I accept your position - these two kingdoms may have no true historic documentation until well after 1000 BC.
In fact, this [b]only further validates my position, which is by the time there is historically verifiable evidence of any Kingdoms known as Judah and/or Israel the peoples of these Kingdoms had been resident in Eurasia for greater than 1,000 years (using your Aten worshipping Egypto-Jew model).
So, it validates something that wasn't even an issue to begin with?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
To claim that a small group of hetergenous Nile Valley Aten worshippers migrated to Eurasia and lived in Eurasia for over 1,000 years without being biologcally impacted by the region and people surrounding them is far-fetched.
Right, which is why I wonder why you keep saying it, as nobody else but yourself, is making that claim.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Get real!!!!!
You get real; stop fantasizing about claims no one made, and start addressing those that someone did make.
Your debate tactic is filled with knocking strawmen, not actually debating some real discussant.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]You get real; stop fantasizing about claims no one made, and start addressing those that someone did make.
Your debate tactic is filled with knocking strawmen, not actually debating some real discussant.
Evergreen Writes:
Ok. So it sounds like we both agree that by the time we have **ANY** historically verifiable references to the Kingdoms of Israel and/or Judah these people would be primarily Eurasian in terms of biological origin? Is this correct?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[QUOTE]You get real; stop fantasizing about claims no one made, and start addressing those that someone did make.
Your debate tactic is filled with knocking strawmen, not actually debating some real discussant.
Evergreen Writes:
Ok. So it sounds like we both agree that by the time we have **ANY** historically verifiable references to the Kingdoms of Israel and/or Judah these people would be primarily Eurasian in terms of biological origin? Is this correct?
It wasn't even an issue; do you get that?
That point you mention above is in fact a non-starter, as we know that ancient Israel as an entity, came into being only *after* Nile Valley immigrants situated into the Levant - and so, you cannot simply deem "primary base origin of the Ancient Israelites" to be "Eurasians".
The idea of *socio-ethnic dilution* of Nile Valley immigrants in the Levant after many years has no bearing on the Nile Valley influence on the formation of ancient Israelites, period.
If you had bothered to read the citations you're provided, you would have known that you're chasing a non-issue:
When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the people brought with them the many stories about Egyptian gods and goddesses, stories they believed to be true histories of their country. But because the Israelites were militantly monotheistic, with a strong prejudice against the god Osiris, the deities were transformed into human ancestors. As with any immigrant group, after centuries of immersion in new cultures and surroundings, the settlers adopted the traditions and beliefs of their new neighbors, often integrating their old beliefs with the newly learned traditions. And as the biblical prophets make clear, over and over, Canaanite culture exerted a mighty force over the Israelites. - G. Greenberg
...but when a discussant is backed up against the wall, all rationale dissipates, and all sorts of antics to distract take over.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]That point you mention above is in fact a non-starter, as we know that ancient Israel as an entity, came into being only *after* Nile Valley immigrants situated into the Levant - and so, you cannot simply deem "primary base origin of the Ancient Israelites" to be "Eurasians".
Evergreen Writes:
Are you arguing that there were Ancient Israelites before the formation of the Kingdom of Ancient Israel? If you are then please provide the historical documentation that verifies this?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]The idea of *socio-ethnic dilution* of Nile Valley immigrants in the Levant after many years has no bearing on the Nile Valley influence on the formation of ancient Israelites, period.
Evergreen Writes:
Again, I accept the influence of African cosmology on the cultural practices of the Kingdoms or Ancient Israel and Judah. Do you accept the **FACT** that by the time there were any historical references to Israelites and/or Judahians (defined as citizens of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah) these people were primarily Eurasian in genetic background?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
That point you mention above is in fact a non-starter, as we know that ancient Israel as an entity, came into being only *after* Nile Valley immigrants situated into the Levant - and so, you cannot simply deem "primary base origin of the Ancient Israelites" to be "Eurasians".
Evergreen Writes:
Are you arguing that there were Ancient Israelites before the formation of the Kingdom of Ancient Israel?
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
If you are then please provide the historical documentation that verifies this?
Gosh, your modus operandi is to 'debate via ignorance' and we then have to go in circles, simply because you don't read what people provide you with:
A curious feature of this inscription is that Israel is the only name with a grammatical determinative signifying people instead of land. To almost all biblical scholars the grammar suggests that here we have a picture of ancient Israel in its post-Exodus, pre-Conquest stage. This discovery caused quite a shock to the academic world of 1896, the year in which the monument was discovered. At that time most biblical and Egyptological scholars identified Merneptah as the pharaoh of the Exodus. On this new evidence historians had to date the even to an earlier time…
The inscription does not tell us what language Israel spoke, but it does imply that Israel, despite its lack of identification with a specific territory, stood as a powerful military force. The text places it among several major political entities. (Hatti was the Hittite Kingdom; Hurru was the Hurrian kingdom; Ashkelon and Gezer were two of the most substantial city-states in Canaan.) The context suggests that it wouldn’t have been listed if it hadn’t been thought worthy of mention as a defeated force. Its presence as a large powerful force without a territory of its own suggests that this Israel came from somewhere else
It could not have arrived there much earlier than the middle of the reign of Ramesses II, otherwise it would likely have been identified with the territory where it was found. This suggests it arrived within forty years of the death of Horemheb, a time frame that would be consistent with both the biblical claim that Israel entered Canaan about forty years after the Exodus and the Atenist theory that the Exodus occurred shortly after the death of Horemheb. - Gary Greenberg
Do me a favor, carefully read all the citations already provided throughout this discourse, so I won't have to keep unnecessarily repeating myself. Thank you.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
That point you mention above is in fact a non-starter, as we know that ancient Israel as an entity, came into being only *after* Nile Valley immigrants situated into the Levant - and so, you cannot simply deem "primary base origin of the Ancient Israelites" to be "Eurasians".
Evergreen Writes:
Are you arguing that there were Ancient Israelites before the formation of the Kingdom of Ancient Israel?
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
If you are then please provide the historical documentation that verifies this?
Gosh, your modus operandi is to 'debate via ignorance' and we then have to go in circles, simply because you don't read what people provide you with:
A curious feature of this inscription is that Israel is the only name with a grammatical determinative signifying people instead of land. To almost all biblical scholars the grammar suggests that here we have a picture of ancient Israel in its post-Exodus, pre-Conquest stage. This discovery caused quite a shock to the academic world of 1896, the year in which the monument was discovered. At that time most biblical and Egyptological scholars identified Merneptah as the pharaoh of the Exodus. On this new evidence historians had to date the even to an earlier time…
The inscription does not tell us what language Israel spoke, but it does imply that Israel, despite its lack of identification with a specific territory, stood as a powerful military force. The text places it among several major political entities. (Hatti was the Hittite Kingdom; Hurru was the Hurrian kingdom; Ashkelon and Gezer were two of the most substantial city-states in Canaan.) The context suggests that it wouldn’t have been listed if it hadn’t been thought worthy of mention as a defeated force. Its presence as a large powerful force without a territory of its own suggests that this Israel came from somewhere else
It could not have arrived there much earlier than the middle of the reign of Ramesses II, otherwise it would likely have been identified with the territory where it was found. This suggests it arrived within forty years of the death of Horemheb, a time frame that would be consistent with both the biblical claim that Israel entered Canaan about forty years after the Exodus and the Atenist theory that the Exodus occurred shortly after the death of Horemheb. - Gary Greenberg
Do me a favor, carefully read all the citations already provided throughout this discourse, so I won't have to keep unnecessarily repeating myself. Thank you.
Evergreen Writes:
Wow! An inscription mentioning Yisrael. That seals the deal. What evidence can you present linking this inscription to the people of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah some 1000 years later!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
Wow! An inscription mentioning Yisrael. That seals the deal.
Yeap, and what was mentioned about it. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
What evidence can you present linking this inscription to the people of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah some 1000 years later!
Duh, the mention of "Yisrael". What else would be there, to learn of the existance of the "Israelites" at the time in question?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
Wow! An inscription mentioning Yisrael. That seals the deal.
Yeap, and what was mentioned about it. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
What evidence can you present linking this inscription to the people of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah some 1000 years later!
Duh, the mention of "Yisrael". What else would be there, to learn of the existance of the "Israelites" at the time in question?
Evergreen Writes:
Over 1,000 years ago there was an ancient kingdom known as Ghana. There is a modern nation known as Ghana as well. This ancient kingdom and modern nation have a relationship, but not a direct ancestor/descendent relationship. We know this through well documented history.
The historical relationship between the Ancient Egyptian inscription on "Yisrael" and the kindgoms of Israel and Judah that formed some 1,000 years later is shady at best.
I expected a higher standard than this from you, MS. You disappoint me.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
Over 1,000 years ago there was an ancient kingdom known as Ghana. There is a modern nation known as Ghana as well. This ancient kingdom and modern nation have a relationship, but not a direct ancestor/descendent relationship. We know this through well documented history.
...which doesn't constitute a form of argument, but in any case, the *first "ancient Israelites" would be the people so-designated in the inscription. It doesn't help your cause about justifying either the 'ancient Israelite origin as being of primarily a Eurasian base' or they can be compared with predynastic Lower Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
The historical relationship between the Ancient Egyptian inscription on "Yisrael" and the kindgoms of Israel and Judah that formed some 1,000 years later is shady at best.
The historical relationship between Ancient Egyptian inscription and the Kingdoms of Israel, is that there was obvious connection perceived between them, and hence, the name. In fact, Israeli history even today, which is told primarily through the Bible, takes them back to Egypt. So, it is not surprising to have them first mentioned in Egyptian archaeological record. There is no historical mention of parallel but two distinct Israelite peoples. If you have one, please produce it.
Modern Ghana is in a territory that has historical connections with ancient Ghana, and so does the ancestors of contemporary Ghanians. At any rate, this is just a smokescreen for reasons stated above. See post above.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
I expected a higher standard than this from you, MS. You disappoint me.
Before you judge another, check your own rusty backyard. I've done everything required in this discourse to nurture a civil discourse, while you've done everything to discourage, as all debate losers do. You ask redundant questions, but provide no answers, much less alternatives. Forget about evidence altogether. To say that you are a disappointment, would be an extreme understatement.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]...which doesn't constitute a form of argument, but in any case, the *first "ancient Israelites" would be the people so-designated in the inscription.
Evergreen Writes:
I have to assume that you see the absurdity in this argument:
A. The Ancient Egyptians mention a “powerful social entity” known as Yisrael. B. 1,000 plus years later a Kingdom know as Israel emerges. C. Hence the vague AE reference to Yisrael must be synonomous with the later Kingdom of Israel
Once again.....Get Real!!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]The historical relationship between Ancient Egyptian inscription and the Kingdoms of Israel, is that there was obvious connection perceived between them, and hence.
Evergreen Writes:
Please provide historic documentation from the Kingdom of Israel demonstrating their perceived connection to the “Yisrael” mentioned in the AE inscription some 1,000 plus years prior.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
...which doesn't constitute a form of argument, but in any case, the *first "ancient Israelites" would be the people so-designated in the inscription.
Evergreen Writes:
I have to assume that you see the absurdity in this argument:
A. The Ancient Egyptians mention a “powerful social entity” known as Yisrael.
Which you deem absurd because....
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
B. 1,000 plus years later a Kingdom know as Israel emerges.
...as supported by this evidence from outside the Bible, but not mentioned in the Bible?
quote:Originally posted by Evergeen:
C. Hence the vague AE reference to Yisrael must be synonomous with the later Kingdom of Israel
The AE reference is vague because...?
And your answer to...
Re: The historical relationship between Ancient Egyptian inscription and the Kingdoms of Israel, is that there was obvious connection perceived between them, and hence, the name. In fact, Israeli history even today, which is told primarily through the Bible, takes them back to Egypt. So, it is not surprising to have them first mentioned in Egyptian archaeological record. There is no historical mention of parallel but two distinct Israelite peoples. If you have one, please produce it.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Once again.....Get Real!!!!!
I am very real alright and so are your outstanding obligations; you see, that seems to be the problem with you - you seem to think that you're still high in la la land [may be you are] and that everything must still be with realm of reality of this fanstastic land. Snap out of it.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
The historical relationship between Ancient Egyptian inscription and the Kingdoms of Israel, is that there was obvious connection perceived between them, and hence.
Evergreen Writes:
Please provide historic documentation from the Kingdom of Israel demonstrating their perceived connection to the “Yisrael” mentioned in the AE inscription some 1,000 plus years prior.
Do you have any historical documentation suggesting that there ever was such a thing as two unconnected parallel histories of Isrealites as a people, explaining different routes to their monotheistic spiritual beliefs?
I've already provided evidence:
1)Yisrael didn't exist in predynastic Egypt era, and only appeared about sometime in late 14th century....hence, rendering your idea of comparing predynastic Egyptians with ancient Israelites intellectually bankrupt.
2)Yisrael were a people first, before they formed organized kingdom states, again as evidence in Egyptian inscription which tells us that they were a people, but one without a territory of their own.
This is the first archaeological mention of the "Yisreal", and so, your idea of some unconnected "Yisrael" kingdom years down the road only hurts you even more, because it places the latter at even *much* much later dates.
3)If the inscriptional [Merneptah] ancient Israelites were the earliest documented Isrealites, then it renders stupid, your claim that "the ancient Isrealite origins were primarily of a Eurasian base". All evidence points to these inscriptional ancient Israelites being new arrivals to the Levant, who came from the Nile Valley. If they weren't, then where is your historical evidence to the contrary, and where did they come from?
Will do for now, get busy.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]There is no historical mention of parallel but two distinct Israelite peoples.
Evergreen Writes:
Nor is there any verifiable historical evidence that the Yisrael mentioned in the AE inscription are directly ancestral to the historic Kingdoms of Israel and Judah some 1,000 plus years later. It is not my responsibility to prove the disconection between the Yisrael inscription and the people of the historic Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is your model and hence your responsibility to prove a direct ancestral connection. Thus far you have not achieved this aim and I doubt you ever will. I expect more circular arguments and double-talk.
In addition, this inscription tells us nothing about the primary biological affinities of the citizens of Judah and Israel once these entities are historically attested. What we do know is that these Kingdoms were SW Asian and hence one would assume that the people would be primarily SW Asian as well. There is no substantive historical data to the contrary.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[QUOTE]There is no historical mention of parallel but two distinct Israelite peoples.
Evergreen Writes:
Nor is there any verifiable historical evidence that the Yisrael mentioned in the AE inscription are directly ancestral to the historic Kingdoms of Israel and Judah some 1,000 plus years later.
Your copout of the requests above is noted. And yes, of course there is evidence that they are ancestral; do you have evidence to another group of ancient Isrealites, perhaps one with a kingdom, during the Rameside era?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]And yes, Of course there is evidence that they are ancestral; do you have evidence to another group of ancient Isrealites, perhaps one with a kingdom
Evergreen Writes:
I don't need to provide evidence because I am not making a case, you are. You're the one presenting fringe archaeology.
The Yisrael inscription and the rise of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel are seperated by over 1,000 years. It is possible that a people of social entity known as Yisrael migrated out of Egypt and impacted the people of SW Asia. This is a cultural maninfestation. This in no way proves or disproves genetic lineage.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
It is not my responsibility to prove the disconection between the Yisrael inscription and the people of the historic Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
Yes, it is your responsibility to do so, because you were already given several evidence-backed reasons why they must be connected, but you provide none to the contrary. See above.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
It is your model and hence your responsibility to prove a direct ancestral connection. Thus far you have not achieved this aim and I doubt you ever will.
Oh yeah, my aim was achieved, as I have silenced you from providing your *own* alternative evidence-backed thesis TO a *singular origin* for ancient Israelites *which came about from migration from the Nile Valley, forcing you...
1)to run away from questions,
2)to distort citations given to you,
3)talk about my person rather than confront the evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
I expect more circular arguments and double-talk.
Were you looking into the mirror when you wrote this?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
In addition, this inscription tells us nothing about the primary biological affinities of the citizens of Judah and Israel once these entities are historically attested.
Why should it? It is not a bio-anthropological evidence; that's for other disciplines to adjudge, which have already been posted nonetheless. You ain't using your head.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
What we do know is that these Kingdoms were SW Asian and hence one would assume that the people would be primarily SW Asian as well. There is no substantive historical data to the contrary.
...which has bearing on the origins of Ancient Israelites how?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
It is not my responsibility to prove the disconection between the Yisrael inscription and the people of the historic Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
Yes, it is your responsibility to do so, because you were already given several evidence-backed reasons why they must be connected, but you provide none to the contrary.
Evergreen Writes:
The **ONLY** evidence you have provided linking the "Yisrael inscription" and the historically documented Kingdoms of Israel and Judah that arose some 1,000 plus years later is the name "Yisrael". Nothing else.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
And yes, Of course there is evidence that they are ancestral; do you have evidence to another group of ancient Isrealites, perhaps one with a kingdom
Evergreen Writes:
I don't need to provide evidence because I am not making a case, you are.
You can keep crying about not having your hands dirty like a little child, but we haven't forgotten that my posts were meant to challenge the idea that ancient Israelites existed in predynastic times, and that they were formed by evolution of "Eurasians". In other words, what you call a case, was actually a refutation of your claims. It is up to you, to redeem yourself, and provide an alternative backed up with evidence....but you won't, because we both know you have no legs to stand on, don't we?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
You're the one presenting fringe archaeology.
Easy to criticize any given evidence, but harder to produce one, doesn't it? - Evidence? You are having trouble producing *any* for your claims.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
The Yisrael inscription and the rise of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel are seperated by over 1,000 years.
And this tells you about unconnected distinct histories between the inscriptional ancient Israelites and the ancient Israelite Kingdom, by what sets of evidence, outside the Bible? You won't answer of course, but worth asking time and again anyway, to expose the fact that you're intellectually ill-equipped to provide one.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
It is possible that a people of social entity known as Yisrael migrated out of Egypt and impacted the people of SW Asia. This is a cultural maninfestation. This in no way proves or disproves genetic lineage.
You are reduced to making strange claptrap. If the Nile Valley migrants moved onto the Levant, how can they not be biological entities, and hence, biological evidence of such?
You posit a case for two distinct "ancient Isrealite" cultural lineages; produce your evidence, and stop crying about not being responsible for such a case, which requires evidential backing. Man up!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
It is not my responsibility to prove the disconection between the Yisrael inscription and the people of the historic Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
Yes, it is your responsibility to do so, because you were already given several evidence-backed reasons why they must be connected, but you provide none to the contrary.
Evergreen Writes:
The **ONLY** evidence you have provided linking the "Yisrael inscription" and the historically documented Kingdoms of Israel and Judah that arose some 1,000 plus years later is the name "Yisrael". Nothing else.
The inscriptional evidence that you mock is a very big deal, for reasons already stated, while you provide zip to the contrary. Your zip evidence is 'nothing' in of itself, and so 'else' need not be invoked.
That inscriptional evidence tells quite a bit about the status of the "Yisreal" at the time in question - as I have already demonstrated.
*It gives us an idea that they are new arrivals to the Levant, and hence, must be the original Israelites.
-They certainly were not from the Levant in the main, otherwise they would have already had a territory by the time of the inscription. In this regard, the evidence's suggestion may well coincide with Biblical claims, in placing ancient Isrealites forebearers in the Nile Valley.
*Israelites were not mentioned anywhere else before and during the Egyptian archaeological record in question, which is significant, because these were regions and timeframes where writing is known to have occurred.
*It tells us that they didn't exist in predynastic times.
*It tells us that though they had no political territory of their own at the time, they were known to be worthy fighters...kind of like how, for example, the Beja are characterized.
*It tells us that there were no parallel distinct cultural "lineages" for ancient Israelites, as you hope to argue for - without a prayer of course.
Ps - Last but not least:
*The monotheistic tendencies of the ancient Isrealites can be tied to the New Kingdom; were the first archaeologically recorded ancient Isrealite *Kingdoms* polytheistic non-Abrahamic faith believing group, and according to their oral traditions, was it suggested that their ancestors were never in Egypt - such that they would be unconnected to the inscriptional ancient Israelites of the Merneptah Stele?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
And another issue that Evergreen keeps avoiding, is that the ethnic identity of the people we are calling Israelites or Judahites was demolished by the Babylonians. Therefore, it is not necessarily true the populations of Lachish were Eurasian, as those people were distributed across Babylon. What is left is the archaeological remains and biological remains. As far as I know, the remains from Lachish as pointed out earlier, seem to attest to a strong black presence among these people.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As far as I know, the remains from Lachish as pointed out earlier, seem to attest to a strong black presence among these people.
Evergreen Writes:
Doug I have stated several times that there was a strong Black presence at Lachish. This is does not prove that the ancient Judahians or Israelits were **PRIMARILY** Black, however.
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As far as I know, the remains from Lachish as pointed out earlier, seem to attest to a strong black presence among these people.
Evergreen Writes:
Doug I have stated several times that there was a strong Black presence at Lachish. This is does not prove that the ancient Judahians or Israelits were **PRIMARILY** Black, however.
True indeed. If anyone really took the time out to read Keita's study on Tell-Duweir they would know that Keita never states that the ancie nt peoples of Lachish were black or tropical Africans. Anyone who says otherwise is trolling
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
And another issue that Evergreen keeps avoiding, is that the ethnic identity of the people we are calling Israelites or Judahites was demolished by the Babylonians. Therefore, it is not necessarily true the populations of Lachish were Eurasian, as those people were distributed across Babylon. What is left is the archaeological remains and biological remains. As far as I know, the remains from Lachish as pointed out earlier, seem to attest to a strong black presence among these people.
You are quite right:
Approximately 31% misclassified into coastal north African and northern Egyptian series, and 30% into southern Egyptian, Nubian, and tropical African series. In the unknown analysis approximately half classified into northern Egypt, coastal North African and European series, and the other half into southern Egyptian , Nubian, and tropical African series. It is well to note in the plot the seriation of the cranial series along Function I. The Romano-British group in this regard, is the most distinct, and the discriminant scores support this observation. - S.O.Y Keita...on Lachish crania
Nobody in their right mind will equate white folks to *tropical* Africans, or assume that white skin is a natural adaptation to the tropics.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Hence only pyschos like Evil-Euro would.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Interesting debate.
Some good points and counter-points from all parties.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As far as I know, the remains from Lachish as pointed out earlier, seem to attest to a strong black presence among these people.
Evergreen Writes:
Doug I have stated several times that there was a strong Black presence at Lachish. This is does not prove that the ancient Judahians or Israelits were **PRIMARILY** Black, however.
True indeed. If anyone really took the time out to read Keita's study on Tell-Duweir they would know that Keita never states that the ancie nt peoples of Lachish were black or tropical Africans. Anyone who says otherwise is trolling
Evergreen Writes:
Charlie, if the people of Lachish **WERE** (and there is no evidence that they were) primarily Black this still would not mean that this population was representative of the summed population of each and every city in Judah and Israel anymore than using modern Atlanta to represent the population affinities of the entire United States.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Evergreen Posts:
Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: a comparative study using principal components analysis
SO Keita
American Journal of Human Biology
2004
"...the Gizeh group (E) is notably diffuse; it ***OVERLAPS*** notably with the region of the plot occupied by European material."
An analysis of crania from Tell-Duweir using multiple discriminant functions
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
SO Keita
1987
"...the Lachish series centroid plots near those of the Maghreb and "E" series, the latter's morphometrics known to overlap with eastern Mediterranean crania."
"Examination of the classification results (when Lachish is run as an unknown) shows that the "E" series recieves the plurality, with the Maghreb series recieving a very small percentage".
Evergreen Writes:
The "E" series is a Late Dynastic Lower Egyptian cranial series. If we accept MS' Aten worshipping Egypto-Jew theory we would:
1. See the indigenous post LGM Levant inhabitants as primarily cold-adapted Eurasian who absorbed a Neolithic Natufian incursion from Africa.
2. See Egypto-Jews moving out of the Middle and Lower Nile at a time when Middle and Lower Egypt was hetergenous with substantial numbers of Central Asian descendents.
3. See the Egypto-Jews move into Eurasia and live among Eurasians for 1,000 years before the historic emergence of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The Egyptians practiced exogamy.
4. See the city of Lachish as but ONE city among the many cities and towns in Judah (not to mention Israel, which was aligned with Assyria). See Lachish with a strong Nile Valley **MILLITARY** contingent extending back to Shishak's Libyan Dynasty.
5. Use a few decontextualized images of Lachish inhabitants to serve as a representative sample of the entire population of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel at the time.
6. If the above mentioned trick doesn't work then fall back on an Ancient Egyptian inscription that mentions "Yisrael" and then claim that the peoples of Israel and Judah 1,000 plus years later MUST be primarily Black because they came out of the Nile Delta in Lower Egypt!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
6. If the above mentioned trick doesn't work then fall back on an Ancient Egyptian inscription that mentions "Yisrael" and then claim that the peoples of Israel and Judah 1,000 plus years later MUST be primarily Black because they came out of the Nile Delta in Lower Egypt!
Doug, you're absolutely right, and nobody has refuted what you said. There was a strong black African component in the Lachish crania. Evergreen's never-ending non-issue about "Israelites being primarily black" will not change that reality, or the fact that it would be intellectually-void to call "ancient Israelite origins" as being "primarily of a Eurasian base". It is all a face-saving ruse for the exposure of his ridiculously bankrupt idea of comparing "ancient Israelites", who didn't exist then, with predynastic Lower Egyptians.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Is this thread going to be split so the off-topic stuff is assembled all together with a proper subject header describing it?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE] "ancient Israelite origins" as being "primarily of a Eurasian base".
Evergreen Writes:
Israel and Judah were kingdoms in Eurasia, just as Egypt was a kingdom in Africa. The people who would form the primary base to the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had lived in Eurasia for over 1000 plus years under ANY Egyptian exodus model.
Evergreen Posts:
Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: a comparative study using principal components analysis.
SO Keita
2004
"Ancient gene flow from such migrations would have been reworked by the new enviornment and demographic factors, and thus become a part of African biological history. It is important to say that there is no evidence to suggest that in the Holocene population **replacement** ocured in any of these regions..."
Evergreen Writes:
Above Keita refernces the concept of demic diffusion from Asia to Africa. Just as there was possible small-scale demic diffusion FROM Asia to Africa in the proto-dynastic period there was possible small-scale demic diffusion FROM Africa to Asia in the pre-Judah and pre-Israel period. Any small-scale migration from Africa to Asia would result in these genes being reworked by the new environement and demographic predominance of Eurasian gene pool over the 1,000 plus year period from the Aten worshipping, Egypto-Jew exodus to the formation of the states of Judah and Israel.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
"ancient Israelite origins" as being "primarily of a Eurasian base".
Evergreen Writes:
Israel and Judah were kingdoms in Eurasia, just as Egypt was a kingdom in Africa. The people who would form the primary base to the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had lived in Eurasia for over 1000 plus years under ANY Egyptian exodus model.
Nonsense. Even an idiot would know that "ancient Israelites", as I have demonstrated, were the name of a people *before* any Kingdom affiliated with them came into being. And no, it is retarded to say that they are "primarily of Eurasian origin".
Anyone who thinks there is a debate going on here, as opposed to a one-sided obliteration of Evergreen's silly directionless face-saving game, is more gullible than they think. I see this debate no less like debating Abaza, Evil Euro or any other troll.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Posts:
Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: a comparative study using principal components analysis.
SO Keita
2004
"Ancient gene flow from such migrations would have been reworked by the new enviornment and demographic factors, and thus become a part of African biological history. It is important to say that there is no evidence to suggest that in the Holocene population **replacement** ocured in any of these regions..."
Evergreen Writes:
Above Keita refernces the concept of demic diffusion from Asia to Africa. Just as there was possible small-scale demic diffusion FROM Asia to Africa in the proto-dynastic period there was possible small-scale demic diffusion FROM Africa to Asia in the pre-Judah and pre-Israel period.
More face-saving distraction.
quote:Originally posted Evergreen:
Any small-scale migration from Africa to Asia would result in these genes being reworked by the new environement and demographic predominance of Eurasian gene pool over the 1,000 plus year period from the Aten worshipping, Egypto-Jew exodus to the formation of the states of Judah and Israel.
Snap out of the delusion, will ya. Gobbledygook about "states" doesn't suddenly change that lie about the need to compare ancient Israelites with predynastic Lower Egyptians.
Use your head, "ancient Israelites" referred to *a people* long before any kingdom was associated with them. We are talking about ancient Israelites as a people, which is what got you into trouble in the first place. You need to get in touch with history 101.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QB] Evergreen Posts:
Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: a comparative study using principal components analysis
SO Keita
American Journal of Human Biology
2004
"...the Gizeh group (E) is notably diffuse; it ***OVERLAPS*** notably with the region of the plot occupied by European material."
An analysis of crania from Tell-Duweir using multiple discriminant functions
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
SO Keita
1987
"...the Lachish series centroid plots near those of the Maghreb and "E" series, the latter's morphometrics known to overlap with eastern Mediterranean crania."
"Examination of the classification results (when Lachish is run as an unknown) shows that the "E" series recieves the plurality, with the Maghreb series recieving a very small percentage".
Evergreen Writes:
The "E" series is a Late Dynastic Lower Egyptian cranial series. If we accept MS' Aten worshipping Egypto-Jew theory we would:
The misclassifications into E series, amongst other series, is just indicative of how heterogeneous that Lachish series was. This series dates back to ~ 800 B.C., and yet, still has a considerable component with strong affinities with Upper Nile Valley and tropical Africans. This is a considerable time gap from when the ancient Israelite Nile Valley forebearers appeared in the Levant at about the late 14th century BC. The Lachish series in turn predates the "E" series dating; so it would be disingenuous to *assume* that the Lachish series came from a similar source.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
2. See Egypto-Jews moving out of the Middle and Lower Nile at a time when Middle and Lower Egypt was hetergenous with substantial numbers of Central Asian descendents.
Don't know what you mean by "Egypto-Jews moving out of the Middle and Lower Nile", when there was no such thing as "Jews" in dynastic ancient Egypt at the timeframe in question.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Even an idiot would know that "ancient Israelites", as I have demonstrated, were the name of a people *before* any Kingdom affiliated with them came into being. And no, it is retarded to say that they are "primarily of Eurasian origin".
Evergreen Writes:
Yes, the affiliation being the word Yisrael and Israel. Nothing more. This is why I consider your position as fringe.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Use your head, "ancient Israelites" referred to *a people* long before any kingdom was associated with them.
Evergreen Writes:
I have no problem with the AE inscription of "Yisrael" refering to a people long before the citizens of the later, possibly unrelated Kingdoms of Israel and Judah arose. What you have failed to do is prove that the people alluded to in the AE inscription of "Yisrael" are directly ancestral to the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel that arose over a thousand years later.
As I have stated before, Ancient Ghana is known historically, but the people of this ancient Kingdom are not directly ancestral to the modern citizens of Ghana. Nor have you proven that the people mentioned in the AE "Yisrael" inscription are directly ancestral or primarily ancestral (two different things) to the citizens of historic Judah and Israel.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]The misclassifications into E series, amongst other series, is just indicative of how heterogeneous that Lachish series was. This series dates back to ~ 800 B.C., and yet, still has a considerable component with strong affinities with Upper Nile Valley and tropical Africans.
Evergreen Writes:
Of course there was a strong African presence in Lachish. Lachish was a military strong hold for Nile Valley military power since the Libyan Dynasties. This is known and accepted archaeology and not fringe like some of the garbage presented. So it is of no surprise to find a hetergenous population in the **ONE** Judahian city. This in no way implies that Lachish was representative of ALL Judahian or Israelite cities at the time. One can find Black-Americans stationed in greate numbers in cities across the globe as well. These sites are known as military bases.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Even an idiot would know that "ancient Israelites", as I have demonstrated, were the name of a people *before* any Kingdom affiliated with them came into being. And no, it is retarded to say that they are "primarily of Eurasian origin".
Evergreen Writes:
Yes, the affiliation being the word Yisrael and Israel. Nothing more. This is why I consider your position as fringe.
It is something more. You have no evidence there ever was two discrete unlinked "Israelite" entities. One proclaims to be the descendent of the original. I'm least intereted your pointless and unworthy considerations; it's fun watching you make a fool out of yourself with each reply. Forget about evidence - you have none.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Use your head, "ancient Israelites" referred to *a people* long before any kingdom was associated with them.
Evergreen Writes:
I have no problem with the AE inscription of "Yisrael" refering to a people long before the citizens of the later, possibly unrelated Kingdoms of Israel and Judah arose.
and even if you did have a problem, it would be yours alone. What evidence do you have ancient Iraelite kingdoms has nothing to do with the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites? If I earned a penny each time I counted how many times you've run away from this question, I'd probably be a millionaire by now. Lol.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
What you have failed to do is prove that the people alluded to in the AE inscription of "Yisrael" are directly ancestral to the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel that arose over a thousand years later.
It's been provided - being too dense to get it doesn't constitute lack of evidence; they are the first and only "Yisrael" ever recorded in archaeology. There is no evidence at any time, of Israelite history existing in two distinct unconnected "cultural lineages". Imagining a possibility doesn't constitute evidence; it is just that; a figment of your imagination.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
The misclassifications into E series, amongst other series, is just indicative of how heterogeneous that Lachish series was. This series dates back to ~ 800 B.C., and yet, still has a considerable component with strong affinities with Upper Nile Valley and tropical Africans.
Evergreen Writes:
Of course there was a strong African presence in Lachish. Lachish was a military strong hold for Nile Valley military power since the Libyan Dynasties.
*And you know that the Egyptians were present in Lachish at the time dated for the crania in question through what evidence outside of the Bible?
*Were the Lachish crania that of the Lachish military, elite, or a section of the general populace?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
So it is of no surprise to find a hetergenous population in the **ONE** Judahian city. This in no way implies that Lachish was representative of ALL Judahian or Israelite cities at the time. One can find Black-Americans stationed in greate numbers in cities across the globe as well. These sites are known as military bases.
This is what I call real fringe garbage. Address the above mentioned. Thanks.
Posted by blackman (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Doug I have stated several times that there was a strong Black presence at Lachish. This is does not prove that the ancient Judahians or Israelits were **PRIMARILY** Black, however.
As stated before: Would you consider the Roman historian Tacitus words for what they were? Quote: "Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin" http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html
For the historian to consider them an Ethiopian people, they must have been black looking. Unless you consider the Ethiopians at that time to be white looking.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^In addition to the above, i.e. my outstanding questions about the Lachish crania ...
The so-called debate in a nutshell:
List of discredited Evergreen claims...
1)Your idea that ancient Israelites need to be compared with predynastic Lower Egyptians is intellectually unsound. NO? Then provide evidence of Israelite existence prior to 13th Century BC.
2)Your idea that ancient Israelites ‘primary’ origins was of a Eurasian one, and that they were an *evolution* of Eurasian society.
- Evidence shows that they had suddenly appeared sometime in the late 14th century, and that they had not always been in the Levant, but came from outside of that area. Interestingly enough, Israelite traditions place their ancestors in Kemet, where they got in touch with monotheistic spiritual beliefs. The society known as the Israelites thus only came about *after* Nile Valley immigrants situated in the Levant and eventually formed a social confederation that would be called “Israelites”.
So, to ignore this crucial Nile Valley immigration - without which there would be no Israelites to speak of, by saying that “ancient Israelite primary origins are Eurasian”, is intellectually unsound. No? Tell us where they did come from, and the extra-Biblical evidence that tells you this.
3)Your never-ending babble about “ancient Israelites being primarily black is not supported, and that they ought to have diluted the Nile Valley immigrants over the years” is actually a non-issue. No? Then cite where I raised that issue.
4) Your idea that ancient Israelite *Kingdoms* just by some mere coincidence called themselves Israelites, as they would have had no socio-cultural ties with Merneptah inscriptional Israelites, even though archaeology first attests to ancient Israelites when they were just a people without a political territory of their own and then later attests to Israelites when they did have a political territory of their own, not to mention that no archaeological record at any time shows concurrently-existing disparate ancient Israelites with distinct cultural *lineages* - i.e. completely independent of one another culturally and genealogically, is immaterial. No?
- Provide evidence that does suggest “ancient Israelite” kingdom has another ancestor - which we will learn from the evidence you’re going to give us about the indicators that tell you that you’re looking at the ancestor - different from Merneptah inscriptional Israelites who do appear to have a feature that tells us that they ought to be ancestral to ancient Israelites as citizens of a nation state.
- The Biblical Israelites supposedly left the Nile Valley sometime in the Rameside era; the nature of the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites seems to concord with this. Also, besides the Biblical Israelites, the medium by which the Israelites told their story [whether you see it as mythology or not], what other ancient Israelite socio-cultural lineage are you aware of? Are the ancient Israelite Kingdoms that you speak of, mentioned in the Bible? Given the seeming concordance between the appearance of the first mentioned inscriptional territory-free Israelites with that of Biblical Israelites leaving the Nile Valley sometime in the Rameside period, what other ancient Israelites could you be talking about, that is said to be not part of the cultural *lineage* that the Bible attempts to describe?
5) Related to the above, your non-issue idea that “ancient Israelite Kingdoms” are not linked to the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites actually hurts you than helps you, because these kingdoms date way much later than the said inscriptional Israelites. Your arguments was suppose to show that ancient Israelites were contemporaneous with predynastic Lower Egyptians. No? It goes back to that need for you to produce evidence of Israelites that date around predynastic period, not some Kingdom dated to about 9th century.
6)Your idea that the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites are not significant, but rather, constitute a fringe evidence, is intellectually unsound. No? Then *collectively* address the individual points I laid out about the deductions made around the inscriptions in question, and establish why these as a *collective* constitute “fringe garbage“.
Last but not least,
7)You have no alternative objectively-supported origins of ancient Israelites outside of what I posited. No? Then produce one!
^Mind you, this list - rather, a challenge I should say - is anti-Evergreen modus operandi; in other words, it is NOT a pick-and-choose deal - it is to be dealt with *collectively*. Failure to do so, would be your default admission to having done nothing more than saving face from your botched argument.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The population history and biological affiliations of ancient Levantine peoples near Egypt needs to be discussed on a separate thread.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^ Summed it up.
quote:extra biblical reference
Darn straight; I don't know how stable solely Biblical place-specific references are.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]While I don't doubt the Eurasian component of the peoples in this region, that does not discount the historical presence of African lineages in this region which predates the Northern Eurasian lines.
Evergreen Writes:
But that's just it Doug, the African lineages do **NOT** predate the Eurasian lineages in the Levant. The Bronze Age people of the Levant descend, in the main (primary descent) from the Upper Paleolithic Eurasian populations exemplified by the Ohallo II archaeological complex. The Bronze Age people of the Nile Valley descend, in the main (primary descent) from the LSA African populations exemplified by the Wadi Kubbaniya archaeological complex. Yes, there was small-scale migration of Eurasians into the Nile Valley, but the primary base origin of the Ancient Egyptians was African. Yes, there was a larger migration of Africans into the southern Levant during the Natufian phase, but the primary base origin of the Ancient Israelites and Judahians was Eurasian.
That doesn't even make sense; if the ancient Israelites only came into being after migrants from the Nile Valley, which you proclaim to concede to, came to the Levant and formed this group, naturally as a social confederation with people they met in their new found Levantine territory, how can you say the "primary base origin of the Ancient Israelites" was "Eurasian"? The entity didn't exist until migrants from the Nile Valley came into the Levant to form it thereof.
If one considers the Lemba Jews Jews, the primary base of the Lemba JEWS was black African
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by blackman:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Doug I have stated several times that there was a strong Black presence at Lachish. This is does not prove that the ancient Judahians or Israelits were **PRIMARILY** Black, however.
As stated before: Would you consider the Roman historian Tacitus words for what they were? Quote: "Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin" http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html
For the historian to consider them an Ethiopian people, they must have been black looking. Unless you consider the Ethiopians at that time to be white looking.
Would **YOU** consider the Roman historian Tacitus words for what they were?
For the historian to consider them an SW Asian people, they must have looked SW Asian. Unless you consider the Assyrians at that time to be Black looking.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The population history and biological affiliations of ancient Levantine peoples near Egypt needs to be discussed on a separate thread.
Evergreen Writes:
I agree. I will start a seperate thread.
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but I wanted to respond to this:
quote:Evidence shows that they had suddenly appeared sometime in the late 14th century, and that they had not always been in the Levant, but came from outside of that area. Interestingly enough, Israelite traditions place their ancestors in Kemet
Those same Hebrew traditions that you cite to challenge Evergreen's opining that the Hebrews were mostly of Eurasian descent maintain that the Hebrews came to Egypt from SW Asia; see the part of Genesis that discusses Joseph being taken to Egypt and his family later moving there. In fact much of the book of Genesis after Noah concerns SW Asian ancestors of the Hebrews; for instance, Abraham was originally from Sumeria. Thus, if you're using Hebrew written tradition as your source as to their population origins, than Evergreen is right that the Hebrew population was primarily of Eurasian extraction.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ First off the topic of the thread including the first post was to show that Lower Egyptians were Africans possessing affinities closer to African and of course closest to Upper Egyptians than to Levantine populations.
I don't know why certian posters had steer the topic away into a debate into how black or African the ancient Israelites were.
Second, you are correct T-rex that the Israelites claim themselves to be Asiatic, but the question I think some posters bring up is how Asiatic along with how African considering that the Levant has had close relations with Africa (Egypt). Even the Bible shows that the tribes of Israel didn't really become a nation until their time dwelling in Egypt and then their subsequent so-called 'Exodus'. That and the fact that Egypt did have sovereign power over the Levant during New Kingdom times. All of this is made even more complicated by the Natufian remains which point to African geneflow during Mesolithic times. All in all the Southwest Asia, speicifically the Levant was the REAL crossroads of populations between Africa and the rest of Asia and NOT Egypt as some Eurocentrists like to fancy.
To complicate things further is the fact that there were black populations indigenous to Asia as well such as the Elamites. So I believe how black or how African the Israelites is still up for debate but we need more evidence before we can say anything for certain.
Posted by Ausarian. (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Tyrann0saurus writes:
Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but I wanted to respond to this:
quote:Evidence shows that they had suddenly appeared sometime in the late 14th century, and that they had not always been in the Levant, but came from outside of that area. Interestingly enough, Israelite traditions place their ancestors in Kemet
Those same Hebrew traditions that you cite to challenge Evergreen's opining that the Hebrews were mostly of Eurasian descent maintain that the Hebrews came to Egypt from SW Asia
You were not paying attention to the exchanges; the "Evidence" in question, is not "Hebrew traditions".
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
So pre-dynastic lower egyptians clustered with Africans then? Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That is the conclusion the study makes which was the very topic of this thread in the first place.
Such a finding remains undisputed to this day. So I don't know why the hoopla about Lower Egyptians being non-African still persists or why many discussants bring up the issues of ancient Hebrew identity.
Posted by T. Rex Master (Member # 3735) on :
Was thinking about this a few minutes ago, and I had a question:
quote:Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Is this guy implying that Palestinians are really Europeans?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I don't think so, but it's likely he uses Europeans as his standard model (like so many Western anthropologists).
In this case he used body measurements to establish that Lower Egyptians had more tropical builds closer to other Africans in comparison to contemporary Palestinian whose cooler (I assume temperate) builds were closer to Europeans.
My only question is what about Palestinians from Epipaleolithic times like the Natufians or even the Mushabians before them? We know what cranial studies say, but what about their skeletal builds??
Posted by T. Rex Master (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I don't think so, but it's likely he uses Europeans as his standard model (like so many Western anthropologists).
In this case he used body measurements to establish that Lower Egyptians had more tropical builds closer to other Africans in comparison to contemporary Palestinian whose cooler (I assume temperate) builds were closer to Europeans.
My only question is what about Palestinians from Epipaleolithic times like the Natufians or even the Mushabians before them? We know what cranial studies say, but what about their skeletal builds??
I see. I'd like to see Mr. Kemp's citation regarding Lower Egyptian vs Palestinian limb ratios.
I myself wonder, what are the limb ratios of so-called "leucoderm" Berbers? After Southwest Asians, light-skinned Berbers seem to be the population that Eurocentrists claim the AEs were most like.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex Master: I see. I'd like to see Mr. Kemp's citation regarding Lower Egyptian vs Palestinian limb ratios.
Mr. Kemp as in Arthur Kemp??! LMAO
Why waste your time with racist trash like him who provide no scientific sources and preaches about 'Nordic' Egyptians!
quote:I myself wonder, what are the limb ratios of so-called "leucoderm" Berbers? After Southwest Asians, light-skinned Berbers seem to be the population that Eurocentrists claim the AEs were most like.
Of course 'leucoderm' Berbers are leucoderm in the first place due to European ancestry but leucoderm Berber speakers of Northwest Africa are an entirely different population from Nile Valley Egyptians of northeast Africa.
Posted by T. Rex Master (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex Master: I see. I'd like to see Mr. Kemp's citation regarding Lower Egyptian vs Palestinian limb ratios.
Mr. Kemp as in Arthur Kemp??! LMAO
Why waste your time with racist trash like him who provide no scientific sources and preaches about 'Nordic' Egyptians!
I was referring to Barry Kemp, the author of the paragraph Mr. Bass quoted in the opening post.
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:My only question is what about Palestinians from Epipaleolithic times like the Natufians or even the Mushabians before them? We know what cranial studies say, but what about their skeletal builds??
I would have to say that these populations were likely still tropically adapted. Indeed, we know Europeans didn't become fully cold adapted until after the Mesolithic, and since the reason for the North African leucoderm Berber speakers phenotype is due to recent European admixture. I'd have to say around the same times possibly for the near East.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ If you are referring to that article on the origins of white skin, I thought it only spoke of skin color and not skeletal structure. The Ainu (Eskimos) and other Siberian peoples have relatively dark complexions compared with Europeans yet are the most cold adapted in terms of body build. Would not Europeans be cold-adapted builds before the Mesolithic?
Also, the Natufian crania were classified as being stereotypically "negroid" in comparison to other contemporary crania found in the area. Are there any studies on the rest of the skeleta.
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ If you are referring to that article on the origins of white skin, I thought it only spoke of skin color and not skeletal structure. The Ainu (Eskimos) and other Siberian peoples have relatively dark complexions compared with Europeans yet are the most cold adapted in terms of body build. Would not Europeans be cold-adapted builds before the Mesolithic?
Also, the Natufian crania were classified as being stereotypically "negroid" in comparison to other contemporary crania found in the area. Are there any studies on the rest of the skeleta.
Nope not from there, and no they wouldn't. I am not too sure on the contemporary crania or body builds from the near east in comparison to the Natufians, but....
Europeans do not become fully cold adapted until about the end of the mesolithic (Jacobs 1993)
Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans
Trenton W. Holliday
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70118, U.S.A.f1
Abstract
Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe. In contrast, Frayeret al. (1993) point out that Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans shouldnotexhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia.
This study investigates three questions tied to the brachial and crural indices among Late Pleistocene and recent humans. First, which limb segments (either proximal or distal) are primarily responsible for variation in brachial and crural indices? Second, are these indices reflective ofoveralllimb elongation? And finally, do the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans retain relatively and/or absolutely long limbs? Results indicate that in the lower limb, the distal limb segment contributes most of the variability to intralimb proportions, while in the upper limb the proximal and distal limb segments appear to be equally variable. Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of “tropical” indices in the context of more “cold-adapted” limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.
Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL a2
Abstract
Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5′ 5′]) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans. Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:The Ainu (Eskimos) and other Siberian peoples have relatively dark complexions compared with Europeans yet are the most cold adapted in terms of body build.
This a basically a confirmation of what has been said on this board. Also, that of humans being extremely cold adapted and still retaining dark complexions, through the consumption of Vitamin D. Which proves cold adaptation does not equal pale skin. Europeans didn't become pale skinned as soon as they moved north, they just recently turned pale along with the gradual adaptation of cold adapted limbs. The recent cold adapted limbs of Europeans can be explained by replacement(OOA), and pale skin through the spread of agriculture, in which Europeans left their hunter gatherer lifestyle for the incoming adoption of farming, which caused a loss of Vitamin D,(Vitamin D which keeps original human populations dark, despite inhabiting cold environments).
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Yes, i agree. Also want to emphasis that we are discussing a more graduated process than people turning from jet black to lilly white.
No doubt that Northern Eurasians had already lost substantial melanin by way of adaptation, by the time they split from East Asians and settled Europe.
And of course, even today most whites are not literally 'lilly' white.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Anything else someone wants to add on the African nature of Lower Egyptians??
Posted by Byron Bumper (Member # 19992) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)