Originally posted by Oshun:
You stupid! XD
quote:Tone it...
Originally posted by Oshun:
You stupid! XD
quote:Like which ones? Quote them please?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I wish Swenet was still here to explain his Hamitic Hypothesis-like posts that he made.
quote:The one where he said that a lot of Egyptian ancestry is just a back migration of Northeast African ancestry back into Egypt from Eurasia...
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Like which ones? Quote them please?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I wish Swenet was still here to explain his Hamitic Hypothesis-like posts that he made.
quote:Woman don't make me angry..........
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Bass has nothing if he can't produce a verbatim Swenet quote
The Peabody Museum thread is a good start to locate something.
But as I have said xyyman and others in the forum have different opinions
quote:There.....
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303
Rate Member Icon 1 posted September 15, 2018 03:30 Profile for Swenet Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:
Volume 57, no. 1. 1966. A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania, by Michael Crichton. Link
This is why the Afrocentric argument is bogus. It's clear that in the period between 4000BC and dynastic Egypt, Egypt was closer to late dynastic Egyptians and modern Egyptians than to most other Africans below the Sahara. And it's clear why this is the case. Eurasian migration to Egypt (which eventually gave rise to modern Egyptians) brought back Egyptian ancestry. This is what was explained to people over several years with the breakdown of EEF-related DNA, for instance in the 'when to use black' thread.
The recent Keita critique leads nowhere. It changes nothing about the fundamental reality of the dominant ancestry in Egypt and North Africa in general, which was not wiped out by backmigration to Egypt. (A pure form of that ancestry was simply partly replaced with a less pure form of that ancestry, with only some backmigration ancestry actually being Eurasian). You can clearly see this in this paper because the admixed Giza sample is still closer to the Naqada sample than the Bantu-speaking sample is to either. The Bantu sample is not even close. Late Egyptians are not to Naqada what one-drop African Americans are to West Africans. The former hybrids would not pass for relatively 'pure' Eurasians like WHG/SHG/EHG, the way that one-drop Aframs might pass for whites or latinos. The paper shows that admixture in modern or late dynastic Egypt is not an argument that supports Afrocentrism. It's largely irrelevant for the Afrocentric position. It's only relevant in terms of CHANGE over time, but there is nothing supporting change of the biblical proportions that Afrocentrics have in mind when they try to push back against the Abusir results. The gap in between both Egyptian samples and the Bantu-speaking sample is going to be reflected in the genetic results. It's irrelevant what ancient Egyptian aDNA sample (north, south, Old Kingdom, etc.) they publish when it comes to this reality, so I don't see how the Keita critique changes anything that will help an Afrocentric position. You will just get a population somewhere in between an IAM-like and Abusir-like population. Which means the landslide victory that people are seeking against Eurocentrics is not in the data (and has never been). Eurocentrics are just going to keep emphasizing the non-SSA component of these populations, so there is going to be no vindication of any Afrocentric position.
Oh, and as far as these papers, they should have never given me access. Harvard better block my IP while they still can. They have no idea... -
quote:This is not the Hamitic theory.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:The one where he said that a lot of Egyptian ancestry is just a back migration of Northeast African ancestry back into Egypt from Eurasia...
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Like which ones? Quote them please?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I wish Swenet was still here to explain his Hamitic Hypothesis-like posts that he made.
quote:I like this comparison for what’s being explained however admittedly the explanations or theories on this matter posted here on ES have been broadly left to interpretation. For instance where these OOA migrants are returning from, whether there were mass migrations or merely continuous geneflow and most importantly WHEN did these interactions begin to take place.
Originally posted by beyoku:
I think you have missed out on the publications to understand exactly what the is saying. He is speaking on North East Africa having a genetic substratum. And pockets of populations in SW Asia having this North East African substratum. It similar to something like E-M35 originating in the Horn yet horners getting MORE E-M35 lineages from North East Africa AFTER they have been affected by A3b2, J1 and and K2.
quote:Although the Hamitic theory has been debunked Geneticists have revived this myth in their studies of African haplogroups. As a result, the East Africans are often referred too in the genetics literature as being distinct from other Sub-Saharan Africans. Sub-Saharan African (SSA) is the name for the Negro race in modern Genetics articles. The Caucasian and Mongoloid populations are referred too in the Genetics literature, respectively as Western and Eastern Eurasians.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:The one where he said that a lot of Egyptian ancestry is just a back migration of Northeast African ancestry back into Egypt from Eurasia...
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Like which ones? Quote them please?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I wish Swenet was still here to explain his Hamitic Hypothesis-like posts that he made.
quote:I guess. I think people need to have a better understanding of the archaeology to have a good foundation and know what some of these things mean. I think "the pillars" of my foundation and understanding are strong enough so all this new age genetic data that is symbolic of "heavy material on the second floor" will never cause my whole "house to collapse".
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:I like this comparison for what’s being explained however admittedly the explanations or theories on this matter posted here on ES have been broadly left to interpretation. For instance where these OOA migrants are returning from, whether there were mass migrations or merely continuous geneflow and most importantly WHEN did these interactions begin to take place.
Originally posted by beyoku:
I think you have missed out on the publications to understand exactly what the is saying. He is speaking on North East Africa having a genetic substratum. And pockets of populations in SW Asia having this North East African substratum. It similar to something like E-M35 originating in the Horn yet horners getting MORE E-M35 lineages from North East Africa AFTER they have been affected by A3b2, J1 and and K2.
I can see exactly why certain positions can be seen as “neohamitocism”
1. It isn’t exactly clear what a pristine A.Egyptians autosomal profile would look like.
2. Near eastern genetics will always take precedence of SSA not only because of Biases but also because of homogenization.
3. The magnitude of OOA correspondence will be exaggerated in Egypt because of bidirectional influence AND divergent population history between North Africans and other Africans who settle in the Sahara or more south/west.
With all of these uncertaincies being presented with an explanation that Egyptian ancestry was “brought back” to pioneer Egyptian civilization can be unsettling.
Here’s why using your example... you make it aceptionaly clear that m35 originated in the horn... but the lineages that came back A3b2 J1 and K etc. Didn’t, it’s the same with the downstream m35 lineages that came back. They might have descended from a Horner lineage but V32 isn’t Horner. Same can be said about the autosomal counter parts to these sublineages. Natufians and Neolithic Levantine who have african ancestors are not African, their autosomal make up in totality is not African. So if you say Egyptians waited on their own dna to be brought back them it can come across as sketchy.
This is even further complicated by the advent of lazaridis’ basal Eurasian red herring. Why? Cuz going back in time with the few sample we have from africa and even some of the very old Eurasians we see a higher amplitude in genetic variation. Though the new data isn’t presented this way and is downplayed by the go to human genome reference panel there are ancient genes/components unaccounted for in modern human variation. Taforalt and IAM makes this clear as day! Despite populations like the Sahawari and southern morrocans showing acceptional continuity... the disparity in actual non African influence in their DNA sticks out like a sore thumb.. and this is with Southern Europeans BRINGING BACK North African dna to morrocco. With people focusing on basal Eurasian being a.egyptian they lose sight of the possibility that Egyptians who migrated out of Africa first carried genes that were undoubtedly outside of Eurasian variation and STILL is.
quote:Thing is, the archaeological data can mislead, or it can be misread. For example, over four years ago, I would have been of the opinion that the Khartoum Mesolithic culture of central Sudan was ancestral to the ancient Egyptian civilization. In the four years since then, I've come to realize that the Khartoum Mesolithic people were probably closer in affinity to modern South Sudanese Nilotes than to AE or any other Afrasan population. This would mean any similarity in material culture between the Khartoum Mesolithic and later Egyptian populations (that I perceived anyway) would probably reflect intercultural borrowing or influence rather than the former evolving into the latter.
Originally posted by beyoku:
I think people need to have a better understanding of the archaeology to have a good foundation and know what some of these things mean. I think "the pillars" of my foundation and understanding are strong enough so all this new age genetic data that is symbolic of "heavy material on the second floor" will never cause my whole "house to collapse".
What I am waiting to see as far as genetics is NOT "Who they were"...the archaeological and anthropological data has already told me that....I am trying to see how the genetic data fits within the framework of what I already understand about the culmination of events in the last 14,000 years. The potters, the pastoralists, the hunter-gathers, the aqualithic cultures and their colonization of, and migration out of the Sahara into the Nile Valley and Sub Saharan Africa. Over the years, the more I have read, the less i feed like i personally have a vested interest. There was a time where i wasn't "comfortable" with Horn Admixture...or Berber admixture in Fulani, or Archaic admixture in SSA. In 2018......Fvck it...follow the data...everybody is mixed.
quote:I guess it depends on how far one wants to take the data (genetic homogenization). But I try not to speak in absolutes and at times revert back to the "pots are not peopkl" idea. I would argue certain CULTURAL elements we find in Khartoum Mesolithic were influential in the Sahara and later spread into the Nile Valley in a clockwise pattern. It provided the OPPORTUNITY for different humans to mix. We could then move to physical remains and see how frequent the older Sudanese type (Jebel Sahaba) follow that path if at all. I see the same thing with the cattle cult and certain Sudanic and Sahelian crops. I just see this as the opportunity for Nilotic type Admixture on their base. Similarly i see the SW Asian agricultural package with sheep and goats incorporated into Africa as an OPPORTUNITY for different humans to mix.....they whole "they was 100%" is kinda stupid from the get go. IMO Egypt was the crossroads of genetic Africa in the same way Sudan hold that position today.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Thing is, the archaeological data can mislead, or it can be misread. For example, over four years ago, I would have been of the opinion that the Khartoum Mesolithic culture of central Sudan was ancestral to the ancient Egyptian civilization. In the four years since then, I've come to realize that the Khartoum Mesolithic people were probably closer in affinity to modern South Sudanese Nilotes than to AE or any other Afrasan population. This would mean any similarity in material culture between the Khartoum Mesolithic and later Egyptian populations (that I perceived anyway) would probably reflect intercultural borrowing or influence rather than the former evolving into the latter.
Originally posted by beyoku:
I think people need to have a better understanding of the archaeology to have a good foundation and know what some of these things mean. I think "the pillars" of my foundation and understanding are strong enough so all this new age genetic data that is symbolic of "heavy material on the second floor" will never cause my whole "house to collapse".
What I am waiting to see as far as genetics is NOT "Who they were"...the archaeological and anthropological data has already told me that....I am trying to see how the genetic data fits within the framework of what I already understand about the culmination of events in the last 14,000 years. The potters, the pastoralists, the hunter-gathers, the aqualithic cultures and their colonization of, and migration out of the Sahara into the Nile Valley and Sub Saharan Africa. Over the years, the more I have read, the less i feed like i personally have a vested interest. There was a time where i wasn't "comfortable" with Horn Admixture...or Berber admixture in Fulani, or Archaic admixture in SSA. In 2018......Fvck it...follow the data...everybody is mixed.
I agree that pre-existing archaeological and anthropological data must be taken into account when making sense of aDNA findings. But when it comes to archaeology in particular, it can be too easy to misinterpret the data or to read things into it that aren't there.
quote:
The survey of predynastic Egypt is separated into four chronological groups:
Neolithic,
Badarian,
Naqada I (Amratian) and
Naqada II (Gerzean).
The Neolithic portion consists of site overviews on Fayum, Merimde, and Khartoum. The authors state that the Lower Egyptian sites of Merimde and Fayum are possibly related, but the majority of this section is spent on Khartoum.
Fayum and Khartoum share many similarities such as:
the presence of amazon-stone beads,
the use of fire pits and hearths,
the absence of cemetaries,
the possible eventual domestication of animals,
the burnishing of pottery, and the flaking and partial grinding of stone celts.
Next, they list the characteristics of Badarian culture. Arkell and Ucko believe that the ?Tasian? culture in Upper Egypt is synonymous with the Lower and Middle Egyptian Badarian.
The Khartoum Neolithic and Badarian share the characteristics of
shell fishhooks,
black top and ripple pottery, and
flat-topped axes.
They finish the survey with an overview of the Naqada cultures.
Throughout the article, Arkell and Ucko list problems caused by the lack of excavations. Little is known about Merimde, and Fayum has no real evidence of domestic animals, as the faunal samples were lost. Carbon-14 dates for Fayum, Merimde, and especially Khartoum, are criticized and the authors propose that the sites actually date earlier than the results. Dates from most predynastic sites are taken from a single sample, so they are much less accurate than a series of C-14 dates. While there is no stratigraphic evidence that the age of Fayum is older than Badarian culture, technological improvements support this idea. Since no Gerzean sites have been found in the Delta, it is the authors? opinion that the Naqada II culture need not originate in that area.
quote:Its not that they couldn't...the evidence (dates) we have indicates that they didnt. The Green Sahara must have been much more attractive. None of these food producing technologies nor pottery immediately filtered into the Horn either. You also have to take into account Wadi Howar being the largest tributary into the Nile Valley prior to the Sahara's desiccation. So yeah, they did follow the Nile...just not to the north. Earliest sites seem to be Central and Northern Sudan...followed by the Central Sahara.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east,
but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
quote:Edit: FTI, WHen i speak about Nilo-Saharans and the Sahro-Sudanese cultural complex I am not creating a dichotomy between them and "Eurasians". I am talking about them compared to other African having a genetic affinity to ANA, Hazdza/Mota, Khoisan, Mandinka, Horners, Pygmies et al.
In their article in Science 2006, Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin published what is so far the best summary of the climatic variations observed in the Sahara during the Holocene.15 According to their research, during the Early Holocene occupation phase (8500–7000 B.C.) the number of rapid monsoon rains increased, the Sahara turned into a savanna-like environment suitable for occupation [Green Sahara] and became resettled by a population from what was at that time an inhospitable Nile valley and from the south (today’s Sudan). These newcomers were hunter-gatherers practicing limited husbandry. The sites in the Regenfeld area indicate that these populations were moving quickly from place to place over long distances. During this period most of the Nile valley was not occupied probably due to harsh and unpredictable Nile fluctuations.
quote:They wouldn’t have been the only African population in the region though. The picture that has emerged to me is that it would have been proto-Afrasan people native to northeastern Africa that settled in the lower Nile area whereas the Nilo-Saharans lay claim to areas further south. Not all the African populations in the region would have been recent migrants from south of the Sahara.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east,
but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
quote:THIS. And from my best guess taking into account the genetic affinity of Natufian and Taforlat....Those that do have genetic affinity with Jebel Sahaba...which is seen as the old Nilotic type...would have ANA but would not dominated by ancestry similar to Dzudzuana.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Not all the African populations in the region would have been recent migrants from south of the Sahara.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east,
but they couldn't or wouldn't travel north along a river full of fish.
quote:You agree with PBS that Nabta Playa was not Sudanese, nor was cattle herding Sudanese.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
They wouldn’t have been the only African population in the region though. The picture that has emerged to me is that it would have been proto-Afrasan people native to northeastern Africa that settled in the lower Nile area whereas the Nilo-Saharans lay claim to areas further south. Not all the African populations in the region would have been recent migrants from south of the Sahara.
quote:LOL Most people in Upper Egypt and down to Nabta Playa or Jebel Sahaba or Wadi Kubbaniya DON'T look like that to this day.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east,
but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
Cultural borrowing without demic contact (including making babies), more than 5000 years ago? Hah.
Anything to rid AE of its blackness just like PBS (2018) First Civilizations Egyptian beginnings.
And all the behind camera personel responsible for choosing the cast had Arabic surnames.
West Eurasian solidarity between Euros and Arabs, the old one two combo ...
Best way to steal a people's future is to lie about their past.
People of Nabta Playa
Wadi Baramiya Eastern Desert "shaman"
King of Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (with abid negro slave)
Narmer
No. AE was an African black founded civilization.
Transplanted Levantine farming foods?
That's what allowed AE to expand.
But what from Sahara helped AE civ.?
Was it saharo-SUDANESE or Gafsian related?
How much from each;
There's no escaping Saharo-Sudanese.
Not even in Fayum A.
What's in a name? Everything the namer intends.
Cultures of and in the Sahara originated by peoples who migrated from 'the Sudan' into the Sahara as the West African Monsoon turned it into a grassland with rivers and lakes, just an expanding familiar 'Sudanese' environment to Sudanese Saharans, new to the new Sahara, old to the Sudan.
quote:I strongly caution taking those admixture results LITERALLY.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
8200 BP monsoon maximum Malawi aDNA shows there was
6-way African substructure in southeast Africa at that time.
Pluralities: Khoe (30%) with the near same amount of San (29%).
'Nuba' at (20%) is the next substantial ancestry.
Atlantic West Africa (8%) and East Africa A (6.5%) are substantial minorities.
The 'Eurasian'contributions (4%; 2.6%).
Mota (1.7%).
quote:When you suggested that "inner Africans" could have moved up the Nile into Egypt, I thought your implication was that these "inner Africans" would have been progenitors to the AE. And I presume that by "inner Africans", you meant sub-Saharan or equatorial ones since that's how the term is commonly construed.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Nice strawman.
Plus you ain't saying nothing I already ain't said.
Not only that I've put up maps showing northern/Gafsian primacy for Delta-Fayum Egypt.
Shall I repost them?
So, really, just what point of mine are you trying to counter?
Maybe you just want to disagree just to disagree?
quote:You agree with PBS that Nabta Playa was not Sudanese, nor was cattle herding Sudanese.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
They wouldn’t have been the only African population in the region though. The picture that has emerged to me is that it would have been proto-Afrasan people native to northeastern Africa that settled in the lower Nile area whereas the Nilo-Saharans lay claim to areas further south. Not all the African populations in the region would have been recent migrants from south of the Sahara.
It was WestEurasian proxy 'proto-Afrasans' like in the PBS.
Well, everyone's still entitled to their own opinion.
quote:You wrote the above in apparent protestation of my position that the proto-Egyptians would have been primarily descended from Afrasan-speaking people native to northeastern Africa (see the map I posted earlier). Ergo, it sounded to me like you wanted them to be recent migrants from the Upper Nile region, or somewhere else in sub-Sahara. And then you went on to claim that I wanted to take the "black" out of AE, as if I somehow believed that native northeastern Africans wouldn't have been "black". You should know me better by now than to believe that was my view.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east,
but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
quote:Source
There are no Upper Paleolithic sites in the Sahara, since the desert was hyperarid. The
earliest Upper Paleolithic site known in the Nile Valley is Nazlet Khater-4 in Upper
Egypt, a flint mine with several radiocarbon dates of about 33,000 BP. Levallois
technology appears to be absent and there are many Upper Paleolithic-type blade cores.
The associated tools are retouched blades, denticulates and bifacial adzes, apparently
used for quarrying. A bifacial adze was found nearby with a human skeleton, which is of
a modern type but retains primitive features (similar to the Mechtoids described below).
It is the oldest human skeleton known from Egypt.
quote:Source
Nothing is known about the Upper Paleolithic in Lower Nubia, but
Levallois technology reappeared there (if indeed it had disappeared) at the same time as the Late
Paleolithic bladelet complexes, around 21,000 years ago.
quote:So what is your view of Ehret's placing proto-Afrasan along the African Red Sea coast as seen on the map I posted earlier? Is your view that this is inaccurate?
Originally posted by Swenet:
And, for truth-seekers, Sudan has no known Upper Palaeolithic industry. This means Sudan was dominated by people related to Aterians until relatively late in its history. Ancestors of the living Sudanese don't move in until the holocene, or slightly before it, depending on who we're talking about. So, people who are inventing homelands for Nubians, Nilotes, Egyptians etc. in Sudan have no substance behind it.
quote:What about el-Ga'ab?
Originally posted by Swenet:
: Sudan has no known Upper Palaeolithic industry.
quote:Really? I'd like to see 1000's of "fucking A.Egyptian art" works of Nabta Playa, Wadi Baramiya, Nekhen, and Narmer.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
And all of a sudden pbs is brought up.
(As if everyone posting here haven’t seen thousands of fucking A.Egyptian art telling us what they should’ve looked like)
.
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Also, this other map seems to characterize a place called Sodmein along the Egyptian Red Sea as an example of LSA industry. The impression the map gives me is that LSA people entered North Africa through a coastal route along the Red Sea rather than down the Nile.
code:Personally I doubt any "one pathway" solutions.Egypt
Paleolithic isolation
Sebilian (kom ombo)
Hawarian (esna - delta apex + wadi tumilat)
Khargian (karkur, qara, thebes)
Paleolithic infusion
Arterian
Siwa
Kharga
Thebes (minor)
Wadi Hammamat (eastern desert)
Esna
Dara
Jebel Ahmar (near cairo)
Wadi Tumilat (eastern desert)
Palestinian
Natufian
Halwan (near cairo)
Fayum
Eastern Desert
Debono UNESCO v1 p637
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:What about el-Ga'ab?
Originally posted by Swenet:
: Sudan has no known Upper Palaeolithic industry.
quote:I assume you've seen Charlie Bass' other recent thread but have chosen not to comment
Originally posted by Swenet:
I gotta go. Will check in later to see if someone has posted updates that extend the Sudanese lithic timeline with genuine UP sites. I doubt the UP ever took hold in Sudan, but I'm open to being proven wrong. [/QB]
quote:Can you tell the difference between these two statements?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:I assume you've seen Charlie Bass' other recent thread but have chosen not to comment
Originally posted by Swenet:
I gotta go. Will check in later to see if someone has posted updates that extend the Sudanese lithic timeline with genuine UP sites. I doubt the UP ever took hold in Sudan, but I'm open to being proven wrong.
quote:The problem lies within the terminology itself. SSA (Sub-Saharan African) is the region of Africa south of the Sahara, Niger-Congo is a linguistic groupig, and "True Negro" is a subjective racial concept. The 3 concepts are not mutually inclusive let alone the same!
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
How can SSA ancestry=True Negro and Niger Kongo, when the genes preceded language family?
If you argue that its recent, from where did it originate then? Basically I am asking where did the ancestry that we call SSA/True Negro/Niger Kongo originate?
quote:Exactly what does one mean by "inner African"?? If that phrase simply means the hinterlands away from the coastal areas, that could also include North Africa just as much as Sub-Sahara.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
When you suggested that "inner Africans" could have moved up the Nile into Egypt, I thought your implication was that these "inner Africans" would have been progenitors to the AE. And I presume that by "inner Africans", you meant sub-Saharan or equatorial ones since that's how the term is commonly construed.
quote:The only thing I question on the above map is the "Khoisan". From what I understand, even though the hunter-gatherers of East Africa like the Hadza speak click languages, they are genetically unrelated or very distant from the ones spoken by Khoisan peoples proper.
Meanwhile, the scenario I'm advocating is that the primary ancestors of the AE would have been long-established in northeastern Africa, particularly the eastern Sahara and Red Sea coastal regions.
quote:LOL Better than the Nat-Geo casting of the original Central Saharans using off-white Mid-Eastern looking actors here (36:56-37:23), especially when the earliest mummy from that region was described as 'black' and 'negroid'!
For your information, I don't like the PBS miscasting and am not going to defend it. I don't dispute that the proto-Egyptian people being portrayed in those screenshots would have been black Africans in reality. Where we disagree is precisely what kind of black Africans they would have been.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
quote:That sh*t is hilarious.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east,
but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
Cultural borrowing without demic contact (including making babies), more than 5000 years ago? Hah.
Anything to rid AE of its blackness just like PBS (2018) First Civilizations Egyptian beginnings.
And all the behind camera personel responsible for choosing the cast had Arabic surnames.
West Eurasian solidarity between Euros and Arabs, the old one two combo ...
Best way to steal a people's future is to lie about their past.
People of Nabta Playa
Wadi Baramiya Eastern Desert "shaman"
King of Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (with abid negro slave)
Narmer
No. AE was an African black founded civilization.
Transplanted Levantine farming foods?
That's what allowed AE to expand.
But what from Sahara helped AE civ.?
Was it saharo-SUDANESE or Gafsian related?
How much from each;
There's no escaping Saharo-Sudanese.
Not even in Fayum A.
What's in a name? Everything the namer intends.
Cultures of and in the Sahara originated by peoples who migrated from 'the Sudan' into the Sahara as the West African Monsoon turned it into a grassland with rivers and lakes, just an expanding familiar 'Sudanese' environment to Sudanese Saharans, new to the new Sahara, old to the Sudan.
quote:https://egyptology.yale.edu/expeditions/past-and-joint-projects/theban-desert-road-survey-and-yale-toshka-desert-survey
"Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
quote:~Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology
There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[...]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography"
quote:~Krzyzaniak; 1991; Nicoll, 2004
In text form: The people of Nabta may have been the last dwellers of this marginal environment. As intense drought conditions persisted, water sources dried up, and the grassland disappeared -6000 years B.P.; the area of Nabta was inhospitable after 5300 years ago, which correlates to 3350 B.C.E.(before the Common Era). The "terminal" date for final occupation at Nabta is around 4780 B.P., as hyperaridity prevailed, and the Sahara was fully established. This profound environmental change precipitated migration, an "Exodus event" in which humans left the desert locales for reliable water sources, as evinced by the rising population along the Nile [Midant-Reynes, 1992; Malville et al., 1998]. As the Nabtan people relocated, they inevitably contributed their own culture and beliefs to the birth of ancient Egyptian religion and the Pharonic civilization, which organized its empire around irrigation agriculture within the overpopulated confines of the Nile Valley
quote:http://www.hierakonpolis-online.org/index.php/explore-the-predynastic-cemeteries/hk43-workers-cemetery/egypt-s-first-mummies
Burial 85
Burial 85 belonged to a young woman (16-20 years) who we nick-named Paddy. She was discovered intact, still fully covered by a double layer of matting. Beneath the matting, her hands and lower arms had been padded with thick bundles of linen and then wrapped. Bundles of linen were also used to pad the area around the base of the skull, the neck and jaw. Yet the major part of the face, the eyes, nose, and mouth were not covered. Her burial contained no grave goods in the usual sense. Only a couple of rounded sherds and a flint flake were found in the crook of her knees.
quote:http://www.hierakonpolis-online.org/index.php/explore-the-predynastic-cemeteries/hk43-workers-cemetery
The cemetery called HK43, belonging to the non-elite (or workers) segment of the predynastic population, is located on the southern side of the site beside the Wadi Khamsini. Work here in 1996 when a land reclamation scheme threatened its preservation and excavations continued until 2004, resulting in the discovery of a minimum of 452 graves holding over 500 individuals of Naqada IIB-IIC date (roughly 3650-3500BC).
quote:http://www.hierakonpolis-online.org/index.php/explore-the-predynastic-cemeteries/hk43-workers-cemetery/egypt-s-first-mummies
Careful removal of the upper layer of matting and linen pads around the head resulted in the preservation of her entire head of hair, revealing a shoulder-length style of natural waves extending c.22cm from the crown of the head with a left side parting and asymmetrical fringe made up of S-shaped curls bordering the forehead. In addition to the excellent preservation of the cranial hair, the right eyebrow also survived.
quote:Race war?
Originally posted by Doug M:
LOL Most people in Upper Egypt and down to Nabta Playa or Jebel Sahaba or Wadi Kubbaniya DON'T look like that to this day.
Yet:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/saharan-remains-may-be-evidence-of-first-race-war-13000-years-ago-9603632.html
These folks are remarkably consistent in portraying Egypt/Sudan border as a border between races.
And not only that, but the Arabs brought the black Africans into the Egyptian Nile Valley thousands of years later due to slavery.
And of course all of that is based on solid, unbiased and unfettered factual data that is free from bias and hypocrisy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:--Renee Friedman
"I suspect there was no outside enemy, these were tribes mounting regular and ferocious raids amongst themselves for scarce resources," curator Renee Friedman said. "Nobody was spared: there were many women and children among the dead, a very unusual composition for any cemetery, and almost half bore the marks of violent death. Many more may have died of flesh wounds which left no marks."
quote:http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/new-study-of-prehistoric-skeletons-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/
When did war begin? Does war have deep roots, or is it a modern invention? A new analysis of ancient human remains by anthropologists Jonathan Haas and Matthew Piscitelli of Chicago's Field Museum provides strong evidence for the latter view. [*See also next post, "Survey of Earliest Human Settlements Undermines Claims That War Has Deep Evolutionary Roots."]
But before I get to the work of Haas and Piscitelli, I'd like to return briefly to my last post, which describes a study of modern-day foragers (also called hunter gatherers), whose behavior is assumed to be similar to that of our Stone Age ancestors. The study found that modern foragers have engaged in little or no warfare, defined as a lethal attack by two or more people in one group against another group. This finding contradicts the claim that war emerged hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago.
Defenders of the Deep Roots Theory have leveled various criticisms at the forager study. [*See Clarification below.] They complain that foragers examined in the studyand modern foragers in general--have been pacified by nearby states. Or the foragers are "isolated," living in remote regions where they rarely come into contact with other groups. In other words, these foraging societies are atypical.
But you could argue that all modern tribal societies are atypical, including those cited by Deep Rooters as evidence for their position. Take, for example, the infamous Yanomamo, an Amazonian society that is extremely warlike, according to anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who began observing them in the 1960s.
The Yanomamo practice horticulture, which makes them a poor proxy for nomadic Stone Age hunter gatherers. Atypical. Moreover, even Chagnon acknowledges that some Yanomamo are much violent than others. Of course, Deep Rooters assert that these relatively peaceful Yanomamo are atypical.
When Deep Rooters complain that a society is atypical, they really mean that the society is not as violent as predicted by the Deep Roots theory. They are guilty of egregious confirmation bias, and circular reasoning.
Deep Rooters display this same trait when it comes to Pan troglodytes, our closest genetic relative. Since the mid-1970s, researchers have observed chimpanzees from one troop killing members of another troop--proving, Deep Rooters claim, that the roots of intergroup violence are even older than the Homo genus.
Deep Rooters conveniently overlook the fact some Pan troglodytes communities have been observed for years without carrying out a lethal raid. Moreover, researchers have never observed a deadly attack by the chimpanzee species Pan paniscus, also known as Bonobos. Deep Rooters insist that only the most violent chimps are representative of our primordial ancestry, even though Pan paniscus is just as genetically related to us as Pan troglodytes.
To be fair, proponents of the view that war is a recent cultural inventionI'll call them Inventors--also play this game. They find reasons to discount extremely violent behavior--by either chimps or humansas atypical. For example, both chimp raids and Yanomamo warfare may be responses to recent encroachment on their habitat by outside societies.
But Inventors can also point to a far more persuasive source of data supporting their position: the archaeological record. The most ancient clear-cut evidence of deadly group violence is a mass grave, estimated to be 13,000 years old, found in the Jebel Sahaba region of the Sudan, near the Nile River. Of the 59 skeletons in the grave, 24 bear marks of violence, such as hack marks and embedded stone points.
Even this site is an outlier. The vast majority of archaeological evidence for warfarewhich consists of skeletons marked by violence, art depicting battles, defensive fortifications, and weapons clearly designed for war rather than huntingis less than 10,000 years old.
Deep Rooters try to dismiss these facts by resorting to the old argument that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. They allege, in other words, that there is not significant evidence of any human activity prior to 10,000 years ago.
To rebut this charge, Haas and Piscitelli recently carried out an exhaustive survey of human remains more than 10,000 years old described in the scientific literature. They counted more than 2,900 skeletons from over 400 different sites. Not counting the Jebel Sahaba skeletons, Haas and Piscitelli found four separate skeletons bearing signs of violence, consistent with homicide, not warfare.
This "dearth of evidence," Haas continued, "is in contrast with later periods when warfare clearly appears in this historical record of specific societies and is marked by skeletal markers of violence, weapons of war, defensive sites and architecture, etc."
Haas and Piscitelli present their data in "The Prehistory of Warfare: Misled by Ethnography," a chapter in War, Peace, and Human Nature, a collection of essays published this year by Oxford University Press. The book was edited by anthropologist Douglas Fry, co-author of the forager study I described in my last post.
"Declaring that warfare is rampant amongst almost all hunters and gatherers (as well as those cunning and aggressive chimpanzees) fits well with a common public perception of the deep historical and biological roots of warfare," Haas and Piscitelli write. "The presumed universality of warfare in human history and ancestry may be satisfying to popular sentiment; however, such universality lacks empirical support."
Many people think that war, if ancient and innate, must also be inevitable. President Barack Obama seemed to be expressing this notion in 2009 when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, just nine days after he announced a major escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
"War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man," Obama said. He added, "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes."
When will Deep Rooters acknowledge that they are wrong?
Clarification: Some readers might conclude based on my criticism of Deep Rooters that they are all hawks, warmongers, who think that war, because it is innate, is inevitable and perhaps even beneficial in some sense. Such views were once quite common, especially in the era of social Darwinism. President Teddy Roosevelt once said, for example, "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." None of the Deep Rooters I have cited subscribe to such odious balderdash. All fervently hope that humanity can eradicate or at least greatly reduce the frequency of war. Deep Rooters believe that we will be better equipped to solve the problem of war if we accept the Deep Roots theory. Of course, I disagree with them on this point. As indicated by the above comments of President Barack Obamaas well as comments on my blog--the Deep Roots Theory leads many people to be pessimistic about the prospects for ending war, a view that can be self-fulfilling. I would nonetheless accept the Deep Roots theory if the evidence supported it, but the evidence points in the other direction. That is my main source of disagreement with Deep Rooters. In the interests of constructive dialogue, however, I'm providing a link, sent to me by anthropologist and prominent Deep Rooter Richard Wrangham, to a column supporting his position. In the column, political scientist and self-described "conservative Darwinian" Larry Arnhart asserts that "explaining the evolutionary propensity to war in human nature is not to affirm this as a necessity that cannot be changed. In fact, understanding war as a natural propensity can be a precondition for understanding how best to promote peace." Okay, so we all want peace. We just disagree on how to get there. More to come.
13,000 year old skeletons in mass grave near Nile are oldest evidence of group violence.
Photo of Jebel Sahaba grave by Fred Wendorf, http://www.chaz.org.
quote:wikipedia says
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
The Bantu Expansion was & is colonist propaganda that the peoples of south/southeast Africa are new arrivals in the area. The theory gave the Germans/Planck Institute & the British/Rhodes both who had economic interest permission to expropriate land and exterminate indigenous peoples.
quote:So were the Bantu always in south/southeast Africa
Bantu expansion
Mapungubwe Hill, the site of the former capital of the Kingdom of Mapungubwe
Settlements of Bantu-speaking peoples, who were iron-using agriculturists and herdsmen, were already present south of the Limpopo River (now the northern border with Botswana and Zimbabwe) by the 4th or 5th century CE (see Bantu expansion). They displaced, conquered and absorbed the original Khoisan speakers, the Khoikhoi and San peoples.
quote:Interesting, West Africans are EEF from the Great Lakes
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] What did I tell you? There was no Bantu Expansion. West Africans are primarily Neolithic Africans and Iwo-Eleru(WA-1). West Africans are part of the Neolithic Package(WA2). EEF from Great Lakes
quote:Which makes no sense. The M'Bantu speaking peoples have been living in the southern and sub-equatorial areas of Africa well over a millennium before the Europeans arrived, so how the hell are they the "newcomers"?! And even if the Bantus arrived in the region a decade prior or at the same time as the Euros, who has more claim to the lands? The M'Bantu peoples who are African or the the Europeans who are not African at all??
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
The Bantu Expansion was & is colonist propaganda that the peoples of south/southeast Africa are new arrivals in the area. The theory gave the Germans/Planck Institute & the British/Rhodes both who had economic interest permission to expropriate land and exterminate indigenous peoples.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Actually, the morphological assessment is true! The Hofmeyer skull does have closer affinities to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than modern Sub-Saharans but the converse is also true with Hofmeyer's contemporary in Egypt-- that is the Nazlet Khater skull has closer affinities to modern Sub-Saharans than to Upper Paleolithic Eurasians!! This is the paradox that the experts have yet to answer. How is it an Upper Paleolithic skull in the Southern end of Africa bear resemblance to its contemporaries in Eurasia but its contemporary in North Africa (specifically Egypt) bears resemblance to modern Sub-Saharans??
There is nothing new under the sun and what was old is new again...
The Hofmeyr Skull has been radiocarbon dated to around 36,000 years ago. Osteological analysis of the cranium by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology indicates that the specimen is morphologically distinct from recent groups in Subequatorial Africa, including the local Khoisan populations. The Hofmeyr fossil instead has a very close affinity with other Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe. Some scientists have interpreted this relationship as being consistent with the Out-of-Africa theory, which hypothesizes that at least some Upper Paleolithic human groups in Africa, Europe and Asia should morphologically resemble each other.[5] A piece of parietal bone (surgically removed) will be sent to Professor Eske Willerslev in Copenhagen for ancient DNA analysis.[6
quote:Also recall the Henn et al. 2011 study Hunter-gatherer genomic diversity suggests a southern African origin for modern humans
Tyrannohotep posted on another thread:
[QB]
I was going to say that the SSA cluster in that chart seems to cover a much broader, more dispersed territory than the North African one. I swear, the Tanzanians and Chadians seem to be positioned closer to the North African cluster than they are to the Khoisan peoples of southernmost Africa. It's almost as if SSA itself is not really a singular race.
quote:Ba'Ntu as a language group is a reality, but I have always questioned how much this reality is the result of direct population movement alone.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Only an idiot would deny the reality of Bantu Expansion. The evidence is just too overwhelming. The real issue is how much of this expansion was direct demic population OR was indirect cultural influence??
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Only an idiot would deny the reality of Bantu Expansion. The evidence is just too overwhelming. The real issue is how much of this expansion was direct demic population OR was indirect cultural influence.
quote:Which makes no sense. The M'Bantu speaking peoples have been living in the southern and sub-equatorial areas of Africa well over a millennium before the Europeans arrived, so how the hell are they the "newcomers"?! And even if the Bantus arrived in the region a decade prior or at the same time as the Euros, who has more claim to the lands? The M'Bantu peoples who are African or the the Europeans who are not African at all??
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
The Bantu Expansion was & is colonist propaganda that the peoples of south/southeast Africa are new arrivals in the area. The theory gave the Germans/Planck Institute & the British/Rhodes both who had economic interest permission to expropriate land and exterminate indigenous peoples.
I swear to God that excuse of Bantus being "newcomers" is the dumbest 'raison de la conquête' I have ever heard in my life! They might as well be honest and say "we're greedy and have the power to" and that would be enough! :eek:
quote:Actually, the morphological assessment is true! The Hofmeyer skull does have closer affinities to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than modern Sub-Saharans but the converse is also true with Hofmeyer's contemporary in Egypt-- that is the Nazlet Khater skull has closer affinities to modern Sub-Saharans than to Upper Paleolithic Eurasians!! This is the paradox that the experts have yet to answer. How is it an Upper Paleolithic skull in the Southern end of Africa bear resemblance to its contemporaries in Eurasia but its contemporary in North Africa (specifically Egypt) bears resemblance to modern Sub-Saharans??
There is nothing new under the sun and what was old is new again...
The Hofmeyr Skull has been radiocarbon dated to around 36,000 years ago. Osteological analysis of the cranium by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology indicates that the specimen is morphologically distinct from recent groups in Subequatorial Africa, including the local Khoisan populations. The Hofmeyr fossil instead has a very close affinity with other Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe. Some scientists have interpreted this relationship as being consistent with the Out-of-Africa theory, which hypothesizes that at least some Upper Paleolithic human groups in Africa, Europe and Asia should morphologically resemble each other.[5] A piece of parietal bone (surgically removed) will be sent to Professor Eske Willerslev in Copenhagen for ancient DNA analysis.[6
This is one of the main reasons why I am skeptical of manufactured racial divide between indigenous North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^^ Yes and again this goes back to my point.
quote:Ba'Ntu as a language group is a reality, but I have always questioned how much this reality is the result of direct population movement alone.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Only an idiot would deny the reality of Bantu Expansion. The evidence is just too overwhelming. The real issue is how much of this expansion was direct demic population OR was indirect cultural influence??
I actually compare the historical situation to the alleged Indo-European expansion originally dubbed 'Indo-Euroepan Invasion'. Just because people speak a certain language does not mean they carry genetic ancestry from the original speakers of that language.
And you are correct, that the genetic evidence disproves direct demic diffusion. What seems to be the case instead is language adoption and acculturation.
quote:There's no need Tukuler. Some folks would rather rush to judgement based on some irrational notion of someone's identity (Hindu?) than actually read what that person is saying.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
He's saying he questions direct demic Bantu fantasy
and supports indirect lingual cultural Bantu reality.
Fine tuning: migration vs expansion.
I hastily didn't digest that in my initial reply to the very knowledgeable Djehuti.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Sage or anyone has a link the UNESCO paper? This got me peeking. Lol! What direction? East – West or West to East?
+
Lwanga-Lunyiigo, Samwiri
quote:I posted the above last week as genetic proof showing genetic inconsistencies of Bantu demic diffusion or migration.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
What about el-Ga'ab?
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
I relied on
Yahya Fadol Tahir a/o Ahmed Hamid Nassr
for El-Ga'ab
quote:No one posted a follow up so I did some research of my own and the comments in that article don't seem to be speaking of a genuine Upper Palaeolithic industry.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Will check in later to see if someone has posted updates that extend the Sudanese lithic timeline with genuine UP sites.
quote:Source
This represents two main cultural
entities: MSA stone tools (represented by small hand
axes, Sangoan, Lanceolate point, Levallois point and
different form of spear point) and Upper Paleolithic
(characterized by tanged Aterian spear point, arrow
head and utilized blades).
quote:Source
The Upper Paleolithic sites found
on the small mounds clustered on the River banks
and water channels, such as Upper Paleolithic sites in
the Western Desert and Preceramic sites in the Upper
Atbara river (Wendorf 1968, Marks et al. 1987).
quote:Source
On a broader level, the assemblages from these sites have little in common with those
north of the Second Cataract. While blade-technology is present at Terminal
Pleistocene sites in the Nile Valley, it is markedly oriented to bladelet-production
(Marks 1970; Schild et al. 1968; Vermeersch 1978). True blade-production is
unknown.
quote:Source
Ga’ab Abu Namel: Oasis located in the eastern
side of the depression, covered by sand dunes in
most parts, one of these oases revealed extensive
small stone chip tools on a small mound (AN-3-05)
(Fig.3). Backed blades with sharp edges and single
ends and elongated arrow head, which indicates a
large workshop of Upper Paleolithic.
). The el Gaab paper you suggested also led me to Elamin 1987. Another paper with some key observations.
quote:Interesting. Was it the desertification?
Originally posted by Swenet:
^It's a good thing I pursued your suggestion of the el Gaab site. That's how I found Marks et al 1987, who helped me sharpen my own understanding of the peopling of Sudan (apparently, most of Sudan was more depopulated than I thought right before ancestors of living Sudanese settled it
quote:Marks et al don’t think desertification is the only reason why areas south of the 2nd cataract were largely depopulated because:
Originally posted by 42Tribes:
Interesting. Was it the desertification?
quote:Marks et al are saying lower Sudan suffered the same deteriorating conditions, but populations there are very visible in the archaeological record along the Nile in Late Palaeolithic times. But desertification did play some sort of role in their view because they see immediate repopulation in central Sudan (by Mesolithic Nubians) as soon as the climate gets better:
[w]hile the region from south of the Batn el Hajar to well above Khartoum was arid during the Late Pleistocene (Wickens 1975,1982; Williams 1982), this cannot in itself account for the absence of populations along the Nile, since it was equally arid north of the Batn el Hajar where there was continuous occupation until almost the very end of the Pleistocene (Connor and Marks 1985).
quote:Source
The absence of preceramic Late Paleolithic occupation is particularly strange because of the rather extensive distribution of early ceramic Khartoum Mesolithic-related sites between the Second Cataract and Khartoum (Arkell 1949a; Caneva 1983; Shiner 1968b), the earliest of which well may date to the very beginning of the Holocene (Khabir 1985). At the moment, it seems as if the central Nile Valley, south of the Batn el Hajar, saw no significant Late Pleistocene human occupation and that the Khartoum Mesolithic peoples, with their distinctive ceramics and their undistinguished stone tools, arrived as immigrants from some adjacent region.
quote:You're swinging from pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday originates in Central Sudan, to now PAA originates in Egypt. What evidence are you basing these positions on? The evidence also doesn't allow saying Sudan was never used as a corridor. And how can a devoted Darwinist believe in 300-200ky MSA history in Sudan stretching to the close of the pleistocene, without any convergent evolution in behavioural modernity that closes the gap with living humans? I'm sorry, but this is not a position someone devoted to mainstream evolutionary thought can take. No convergent evolution to full suite of behavioural modernity in MSA populations is an open can of warms for you. Might want to sit this one out.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
This is only tangentially related to the main topic insofar as it concerns UP/LSA cultures in North Africa, but has anyone here heard of the Mousterian Pluvial? Because it's another "Green Sahara" climatic phase that took place 50-30 kya. Anyone else see this coinciding with the >55 kya date for OOA that Posth et al 2016 estimate?
Still not having any luck in finding UP/LSA cultures in Sudan during the LGM, by the way. I think Swenet is right that MSA people would have occupied the Sudanese segment of the Nile basin during that period. But then, if UP/LSA cultures never passed through any region of Sudan, how would they have gotten to North Africa in the first place ~50 kya (assuming that the UP/LSA's ultimate origin is somewhere in southern Africa)? Did they have another route from sub-Sahara towards the north that doesn't go through Sudan?
On a final note, those UP/LSA cultures that occupied Upper Egypt during the LGM are looking like good candidates for proto-Afrasan speakers to me right now.
quote:Yeah, I'm not going to bother with you anymore. At least not if you keep up this attitude.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You're swinging from pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday originates in Central Sudan, to now PAA originates in Egypt. What evidence are you basing these positions on? The evidence also doesn't allow saying Sudan was never used as a corridor. And how can a devoted Darwinist believe in 300-200ky MSA history in Sudan stretching to the close of the pleistocene, without any convergent evolution in behavioural modernity that closes the gap with living humans? I'm sorry, but this is not a position someone devoted to mainstream evolutionary thought can take. No convergent evolution to full suite of behavioural modernity in MSA populations is an open can of warms for you. Might want to sit this one out.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
This is only tangentially related to the main topic insofar as it concerns UP/LSA cultures in North Africa, but has anyone here heard of the Mousterian Pluvial? Because it's another "Green Sahara" climatic phase that took place 50-30 kya. Anyone else see this coinciding with the >55 kya date for OOA that Posth et al 2016 estimate?
Still not having any luck in finding UP/LSA cultures in Sudan during the LGM, by the way. I think Swenet is right that MSA people would have occupied the Sudanese segment of the Nile basin during that period. But then, if UP/LSA cultures never passed through any region of Sudan, how would they have gotten to North Africa in the first place ~50 kya (assuming that the UP/LSA's ultimate origin is somewhere in southern Africa)? Did they have another route from sub-Sahara towards the north that doesn't go through Sudan?
On a final note, those UP/LSA cultures that occupied Upper Egypt during the LGM are looking like good candidates for proto-Afrasan speakers to me right now.
quote:Your two last post are months apart and respond to me saying the same subject matter. Given similar drive-by reactions in the past just to disapprove of what I say, do you have some sort of problem with the ideas put forward in my posts? What does the first sentence you bolded have to do with relaxing or not relaxing?
Originally posted:
Admin: Relax. [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
You're swinging from pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday originates in Central Sudan, to now PAA originates in Egypt. What evidence are you basing these positions on? The evidence also doesn't allow saying Sudan was never used as a corridor. And how can a devoted Darwinist believe in 300-200ky MSA history in Sudan stretching to the close of the pleistocene, without any convergent evolution in behavioural modernity that closes the gap with living humans? I'm sorry, but this is not a position someone devoted to mainstream evolutionary thought can take. No convergent evolution to full suite of behavioural modernity in MSA populations is an open can of warms for you. Might want to sit this one out.
quote:It's a variation of the old "why are there still monkeys if evolution is true" line of reasoning that he's only bringing up again in this thread as his way of personally attacking me. His playing dumb about it notwithstanding, it's nothing more than an obvious troll tactic.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
You're swinging from pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday originates in Central Sudan, to now PAA originates in Egypt. What evidence are you basing these positions on? The evidence also doesn't allow saying Sudan was never used as a corridor. And how can a devoted Darwinist believe in 300-200ky MSA history in Sudan stretching to the close of the pleistocene, without any convergent evolution in behavioural modernity that closes the gap with living humans? I'm sorry, but this is not a position someone devoted to mainstream evolutionary thought can take. No convergent evolution to full suite of behavioural modernity in MSA populations is an open can of warms for you. Might want to sit this one out.
Convergent evolution? With whom?
Are you insinuated humans have “evolved” within the last 300k years?
I just need clarity on how these points are relevant.
quote:So, where are you leading by example? You’ve banned your detractors and never tactfully disagreed. How convenient. Everyone can create an homogeneous environment where only some views are welcome, and then preach higher morals. You are not an embodiment of your "higher morals", sorry. None of this kumbaya stuff when I made comments over the years about Nile Valley populations you didn’t like. As I recall, I and others were supposed to be a "Hamiticists". You are only describing yourself (as recent as your last two posts before yesterday). At least I'm not a hypocrite and cry about insults when they come my way. If you have a problem with my style of posts, change the rules. And change your own behaviour to match your own rules/preaching.
Heaven forbid that I have things going on in my life, such as military requirements and personal issues. Point being there is a way to tactfully disagree with people or provide a counter-argument. You could learn to do that instead of masking passive-aggressive insults behind "objectivity". Enough.
quote:On the previous page I mentioned Cabrera, Petraglia and Rose and said it’s all connected to Sudan’s MSA record. I already mentioned evolution in behavioural modernity when I referenced new age multiregionalism. But, in your mind, the world revolves around you and everyone is out to get you.
It's a variation of the old "why are there still monkeys if evolution is true" line of reasoning that he's only bringing up again in this thread as his way of personally attacking me. His playing dumb about it notwithstanding, it's nothing more than an obvious troll tactic.
quote:What is on topic in regards to this thread? The OP made accusations about Hamiticism that were never substantiated.
Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
Yea can we please get back on topic?
quote:> Makes irrelevant claim about how the MSA's persistence in certain region of Sudan disproves "Darwinism" (read atheism) for no other apparent reason than to troll me, a "devoted Darwinist"
Originally posted by Swenet:
On the previous page I mentioned Cabrera, Petraglia and Rose and said it’s all connected to Sudan’s MSA record. I already mentioned evolution in behavioural modernity when I referenced new age multiregionalism. But, in your mind, the world revolves around you and everyone is out to get you.
quote:I don’t ask for ‘beef’, but I recognize that my dislike for certain things tends to lead to that. I know there has to still be hope for me though as long I’m lightyears away from breaking your legendary beef record.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet, are u getting into beefs again?
Posts: 34702quote:If lurkers really want to know what my reasoning was for this last thing I wrote, I simply had a hard time finding LSA/UP Paleolithic cultures along the Red Sea coast of Sudan, the area Ehret claimed represented the proto-Afrasan homeland (the closest I could find was one at Sodmein along the coast in southern Egypt). It seemed to me that the LSA/UP communities identified in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia would be better candidates since that's where we find most of the archaeological data for a human presence in the eastern Sahara. I could be wrong on that count though.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
On a final note, those UP/LSA cultures that occupied Upper Egypt during the LGM are looking like good candidates for proto-Afrasan speakers to me right now.
quote:
Early Human Occupation at al-Jamrab (White Nile Region, Central Sudan):
A Contribution to the Understanding of the MSA of Eastern Africa
Article in Journal of African Archaeology 16(2) · November 2018
Abstract
The middle reaches of the Nile River play a key role in the current models
about the diffusion of modern Humans out of Africa, nevertheless the Early
and the Middle Stone Age (Early Palaeolithic and Middle Palaeolithic) in
central Sudan are poorly known.
On-going investigation at al-Jamrab (White Nile region) highlights the
archaeological potential of the central Sudan and illustrates the
importance of an integrated approach combining
• archaeological excavation and
• palaeoenvironmental reconstruction
for understanding cultural site formation and post-depositional dynamics.
The stratigraphic sequence at al-Jamrab includes a thick cultural layer rich
in Early and Middle Stone Age artefacts, preserved in a deeply weathered
palaeosol developed on fluvial sediments. The cultural layer includes a
two-fold human occupation covering the Middle Stone Age, with Acheulean
and Sangoan bifacial artefacts, although an Early Stone Age/Middle Stone
age transitional phase cannot be excluded.
The artefact-bearing unit is attributed to the Upper Pleistocene based on
• preliminary OSL dating,
• the local palaeoenvironmental context, and
• strong pedogenetic weathering.
Considering the paucity of archaeological data for the Pleistocene of Sudan
and the importance of this region in the study of human dispersal out of
Africa, this preliminary work on a new site and its associated stratigraphic
context provides insights into the early peopling of Sudan and adds one more
tessera to the Eastern Africa picture.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:What about el-Ga'ab?
Originally posted by Swenet:
: Sudan has no known Upper Palaeolithic industry.
Feel free to add to the Egypto-Sudanese timelines. If you can find something I'll look into if it looks promising.
http://spa-uitgevers.nl/Webwinkel-Product-3534058/South-Eastern-Mediterranean-Peoples-Between-130000-and-10000-Years-Ago.html
