posted 25 April 2004 11:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
I think my point has been missed by all apart from from Amun. Many can give examples of populations naming others by defining features, and cultural differences, but not one has given an example of a people or culture that has defined itself by this means. As Amun has suggested the word may simply be taken out of context as their is no historical, cultural, basis for them to do so.

Kem, my point is that It is simply not accurate to say that ancient Egyptians did definately call themselves black based on word association when it is not supported by many other aspects of AE of which I have pointed out, non of which has been challenged.

I also understand that your comment regarding no other Ancient African languages being available to compare this culturaly abnormal self reference, but since the word assosiation and meaning is based on current connections to current African languages, then I do not see how one can have it both ways.

RE: Its acceptable to base the meaning and "defined" the meaning by its conncections to simular words in other current African languages.

But when a compariment in relation to the actual use of the same word in the same self defining way can not be found to connect to current populations Culture and language, its not apropriate, and we need to decipher before we speculate.

I think if the later can not be accepted then the former is on shaky ground also, unless as I said comparitve African relationships can be shown.

Ozzy

---

The black Mauritanians would also call themselves black, but not the lighter skinned ones. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1515054.stm

They call themselves this by contrasting themselves against their neighbors, yes. But Kemmau also had another group to contrast themselves against. I never said there was no other group to contrast themselves against.

You and Amun are both entitled to your opinions, but what is not accurate is to say that no group uses skin color/physical features to define themselves. I'm struggling to believe that we could debate this. A group of people that came from Britian, Spain, France etc, all acknowledged that they had something in common. They were white. And they called themselves such. Groups of Americans, Carribeans, South Americans and some Africans etc, call themselves black. There are numerous examples of groups that use physical traits to define themselves.

Back to the subject, you can argue what you wish about the word Kemmau. What you can not argue is that Kem means black, and that Kemmau means Egyptians, unless of course you want to change the definitions.

posted 25 April 2004 11:26 AM            

Thought Writes:

Hmmm, sounds like you are attempting to read into my psychology. If you want to know what I think, just ask me. No need to put words in my mouth. In addition, if you stay current with this forum you would know that I said that modern Egyptians (no matter what they LOOK like) have greater affinity with Ancient Egyptians.

India was a construct of different people and kingdoms and lanuages as well. Have you studied Indian history? I think not!

posted 25 April 2004 11:34 AM            

Thought Writes:

posted 25 April 2004 11:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
PS: The back migration is by no means shaky, its as supported as any mainstream Genetic reaserch.

---

Ozzy i have a hypothesis that will totally eradiccate all confusion with race, genetics, evolution. This is a simple concept. If we study race and genetics from the point where we study evolution we will have no confusion. Although it is simple its is kind of lengthy and I don't have the time to discuss it right now. I will just leave the basics.
- Within ("Black")Africa there are black skinned, kinky hair with every single crania.

- Everyone is genetically related, some more than other and some more imbreed than other. I am talking from a scientific point of view.

-There are Africans with Asian features, caucasian features and what we call negro features. And obviously many with a mixture of all of these.

- A certain lineage that make up the Asians contained more of what we call asian features, a certain lineage that produced the "white"/Caucasian had more "caucasian". A certain lineage that make up the "black"/Negro had more of the feature that we call "black" or negro. However most Africans are a combination of these three pehnotypes. However these different phenotypes were by no means genetically exclusive to each other. SOme having more genetic associations with others and some becoming inbred while many had a continual exchange of genetic material.

-The common identification of these three main groups were skin colour and hair type/texture, however these traits did not remain constant due to genetic variations and natural mutations within population.

To me this is the logical way to study race and genetics from an evolutional point of view. I hope you guys understand where I am coming from b/c this is just a concise synopsis of my hypothesis. When Have time I will type out a more scientific orientated discussion of this viewpoint. I have never heard anyone discuss race from this viewpoint before.

posted 25 April 2004 01:58 PM            

-There are Africans with Asian features, caucasian features and what we call negro features. And obviously many with a mixture of all of these.

Thought Writes:

posted 25 April 2004 02:01 PM            

- A certain lineage that make up the Asians contained more of what we call asian features, a certain lineage that produced the "white"/Caucasian had more "caucasian". A certain lineage that make up the "black"/Negro had more of the feature that we call "black" or negro. However most Africans are a combination of these three pehnotypes. However these different phenotypes were by no means genetically exclusive to each other. SOme having more genetic associations with others and some becoming inbred while many had a continual exchange of genetic material.

Thought Writes:

posted 25 April 2004 08:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
They call themselves this by contrasting themselves against their neighbors, yes. But Kemmau also had another group to contrast themselves against. I never said there was no other group to contrast themselves against.

---

posted 25 April 2004 10:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun:
That isn't my point. I actually made two points. The first being that Egyptians wouldn't use skin color to distinguish themselves from other Africans unless they looked radically different. My second point is that ancient Egyptians were not homogeneous making it all the more unlikely that physical charateristics would be used by them to identufy themselves.

---

posted 27 April 2004 01:46 AM            

you really missed my point

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
Thought Writes:

Hmmm, sounds like you are attempting to read into my psychology. If you want to know what I think, just ask me. No need to put words in my mouth. In addition, if you stay current with this forum you would know that I said that modern Egyptians (no matter what they LOOK like) have greater affinity with Ancient Egyptians.

India was a construct of different people and kingdoms and lanuages as well. Have you studied Indian history? I think not!

We are NOT in AE, we are in the USA (most of us), using the English language. Therefore we have to utilize the social constructs that are relevent to this society when communicating. We can't use AE social classification systems my friend, because we don't know them....

---

posted 27 April 2004 01:59 AM            

Thought Writes:

posted 27 April 2004 02:02 AM            

Thought Writes:

posted 27 April 2004 03:25 PM            

Please provide your sources for this assertation. India was divided between many kingdoms, cultures, languages, and ethnic groups.[/B][/QUOTE]

posted 27 April 2004 03:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
Africa was never a single unit. There is nothing the United African people in the past.

Thought Writes:

This is true. But the indigenous complex cultures of Africa all spring from the Saharo-Sudanese cultural tradition. Common African religious and social beliefs unite Africa as a continuity. If this is what you want to debate then we can certainly analyze this issue.

---

posted 27 April 2004 11:16 PM            

Thought Writes:

posted 27 April 2004 11:20 PM            

Thought Writes:

posted 28 April 2004 12:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

Thought Writes:

Yes, but you weren't this specific to begin with in terms of the date that India was unified. India was NOT allways a unified region. Africa could be compared to Asia or even southern Asia (India, Bangledish, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc.) prior to 2000BC.[/B]

---

posted 28 April 2004 01:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
2000BC Wow what a wishful thinking!! You better be able to defend your position. I don't take such claims seriously. Do you have any Idea how big Africa is?

---

Thought Writes:

posted 29 April 2004 04:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:
Thought Writes:

You do realize that most Africans expanded over the entire continent within the past 2000 years with the so-called bantu migrations. Most Black Africans prior to this period lived in North Africa.

---

posted 29 April 2004 07:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:
Thought Writes:

You do realize that most Africans expanded over the entire continent within the past 2000 years with the so-called bantu migrations. Most Black Africans prior to this period lived in North Africa.

---

posted 29 April 2004 02:03 PM            

It appears that most Western Africans,Central Africans,and other populations do originate in the Central Sahara and later began move as the Sahara began to turn to desert. Who previously lived in Western Africa were possibly pgmy type people. I don't dismiss that there might be an early connection between the ancestors of Western Africans and early Egypt,but this is probabaly as far as it extends.

The Bantu migration occured shortly around 800 B.C. and probabaly reached the coast of Kenya somewhere around 1 AD or sooner. The Proto-Bantus originate around Gabon around 1500 B.C.

Dubai Doctor,you might want to read some books on African archaeology before you make such rash statements. You should not insult people because you disagree with their standpoint. You should know this is bad chracter and faulty logic in a debate.

The ancestors of the ancient Egyptians are the modern Egyptians. Without a doubt,there is mixture from foreginers in the urban areas and in some regions in the rural Delta. However,the isolated Fellahin in Lower and Upper Egypt have substained relatively little foreign instrusion except for some intermarriage in Middle Egypt with Greco-romans and Syrian mercenaries,and some slight intermixture with some Yemani Arabs and Bedouins in some areas of Upper Egypt. This is not to say that the ancient Egyptian was homogenous which it was not!

Reguardless of the intermixture from the past or present in Egypt,Egyptian civlization has an African base! The civlization originated amung people in Upper Egypt that were clearly African based! The negriod compnent in Egypt has always been in Upper Egypt and can be clearly seen once one travels past Asyut. Even Arabic writers have commented on this phenomenon as did many Greco-Roman writers in the past. The more southerly you go the more ''negriod'' in appearence the Egyptians appear.

See the following:

There is more tendecy to Negriodism as Nubia is approached.

Maqrizi and 'Abd Al-Latif' had already noted this in the fourteenth
century,and any traveler who gets as far south as Aswan can see it for
himself.

The Saidi,or Upper Egyptian,who lives in a drier and hotter
climate,is taller,more bronzed ,vigorous and muscular than the fellah
of the Delta.
''It is rare that one encounters persons with a light complexion or
ruddy complexion ,the children are in general spare,defomred,and lack
the freshness of complexion. Most of the men begin to improve in
looks after the age oif twenty. The inhabitants of the Said have a
slenderer body,a drier temperature and a darker complexion; wrote
'Abd' al-Latif in his account of Egypt

page 67

The Egyptian Peasent

Henery Ayrout Habib

Becon Press

posted 29 April 2004 02:41 PM            

Thank you for poiniting out that the more south you go the more Negroid they appear, so you conceed that the more north you go the more un-negroid egyptians appear. So why are we having this argument. Why do black americans want to claim ancient egypt as thier own?

I would like to appologize if I insulted any one because I did not mean too do that.

"Reguardless of the intermixture from the past or present in Egypt,Egyptian civlization has an African base! The civlization originated amung people in Upper Egypt that were clearly African based! The negriod compnent in Egypt has always been in Upper Egypt and can be clearly seen once one travels past Asyut. Even Arabic writers have commented on this phenomenon as did many Greco-Roman writers in the past. The more southerly you go the more ''negriod'' in appearence the Egyptians appear."

posted 29 April 2004 03:05 PM            

some one made an argumnet earlier that african people were living in the Sahara and 2000 years ago they filled the rest of the contenint. This can't be possibly true.

posted 29 April 2004 05:27 PM            

I can understand this position,and I respect your opinion. Even though I don't necessary agree with ever claim the advocates of this claim make,I believe there are certain cultural similarities between some Western African groups. In the past individual Western Africans have claimed many originated more Eastern than their present location. You can postulate that such mention is either Egypt or perhaps the Sahara before desertification. I chose the later,but I believe that in Neolithic times the Saharan ancestors of most West and Central Africans were also included in pre-dyanstic Egypt.

Some African Americans have Fulani and Tuareg ancestry which have been linked to the elongated African type in the early Nile Valley. Majority,though,do come from Western and Central Africa.

''Any body who thinks that Black American have some knid of entitlment in Egypt or Aencient Egypt or egyptian history bacouse they belong to the same precieved race is wrong pure and simple. ''

Wouldn't you agree the same applies to Northern and Western Europeans who obcess about Greece and Rome. Neither one of these people have any connection besides the basis of many modern Western culture to either Greece or Rome.

''The main problem as I see it is the fact that African Americans lost there heritage and any connection to their ancestors but they simply are looking to replace that loss by claiming the Ancent Egyptian as some how as their forefathers. ''

I can't say since I am an Egyptian living in America as opposed to a Disaporian African living America. The problem I will say lies more within the confinds of past white supremist scholars that have attached race to accomplishment throughout history. Egypt in the eyes of the West is the only redeming part of Africa,so naturally a opressed people cling tightly to it to combat Eurocentric and white supremacy.

As an Egyptian I am victim to the same people since most of the scholars from the early 19th to 20th century tried to white wash Egypt into total whitness and denied the African root. Egypt is not the only civlization that has fallen victim to whitewashing since early colonist claimed clear African accomplishments were also the work of some pusedo white or near white race that would be summoned to explain whatever complexity in Africa. Scholars once thought the Great Zimbabwee and the Benin bronze sculpture were products of handicraft of ''white'' people. Basil Davidson,for instance,points this out in his book entitled ''The Lost Cities of Africa''.

Egypt itself has been used by white supremist scholars to diffuse everything from domesticated plants to boat building to certain parts of Africa. Clearly,early scholars wanted to see Egyptians as some civlizing ''white'' race that civlized more primitive negriod Africans. All this scholarship still persists under a cloak that is not as noticeable as it once was.

The media does a good job of ignoring other parts of Africa that deserve attention. African Americans are only exposed to Egyptian culture so this is what they associate themselves with. I feel that more emphasis should be placed on other regions in Africa besides just Egypt.

White Americans are just as obcessed with claiming Egypt. The Eurocentrists should also be pointed out for spreading racist myths about modern and ancient Egyptians. Eurocentric 19th and 20th century scholars have probabaly done way more damage than African Americans have done.

posted 29 April 2004 05:46 PM            

My arguement is that some of the early Saharan ancestors of modern Western Africans also were part of the populations that made up the pre-dyanstic Egypt.

''Thank you for poiniting out that the more south you go the more Negroid they appear, so you conceed that the more north you go the more un-negroid egyptians appear. So why are we having this argument. Why do black americans want to claim ancient egypt as thier own?''

Because of some cultural similarities that were pointed out by early scholars. Some have argued that some modern Western African ethnic groups had cultural similarities with Dyanstic Egyptians.

We are also having this arguement because some modern Egyptians misrepresent the etnicity of ancient and modern Egyptians and ignore facts about ancient Egyptian past. Not to mention that early Egyptologist also misrepresented the population dyanimcs of the Egyptian population.

The big debate is about what exact composition the early people in Lower Egypt were. We know definatley that majority of the people in Upper Egypt were.

''What Rash statments? could you point them out to me? let me ask you specific question was Africa any empty place until Saharan people moved and filled Africa (the cradle of humanity). I thought our ancestors came out of Kenya/Tanzania/Ethiopia how could they have reached there 1 AD. I know that etheopia was a seprate kingdom at least as far as 1 melinium BC''

Understand that there were populations that existed in the regions of Western,Central,and Eastern Africa. However,none of these populations are ancestral to modern Western Africans besides the fact we all share a common ancestor that dispersed from Africa.

Read my post very clearly because I have never stated ''all'' Africans originated from the Sahara region,but the ancestors of Western and Central Africans did!

The movement 2,000 years ago was the Bantu migration dated to 800 B.C. that moved into Kenya around 1 AD. The Proto-Bantu came about 1500 B.C. in Gabon.

The only people living in modern Western and Central Africa before the drying of the Sahara were little pgmy type people or Khoisan type Africans.

See the following:

The future of the central Saharans was not always the same as at Dhar Tichitt. Evidence suggests that the people migrated, some southwest, some southeast, some perhaps north, following the drying riverbeds as they sought sites where they could sus- tain themselves. Since West Africa had not yet been favorable to settlement, due to its dense forests, the central Saharans may represent some of the early ancestors of some of these peoples. http://www.h-net.org/~africa/biblio/Winshall.html

'''some one made an argumnet earlier that african people were living in the Sahara and 2000 years ago they filled the rest of the contenint. This can't be possibly true.''

We are talking about the ancestors of the modern Western African and Central Africans.

See again the following:

The future of the central Saharans was not always the same as at Dhar Tichitt. Evidence suggests that the people migrated, some southwest, some southeast, some perhaps north, following the drying riverbeds as they sought sites where they could sus- tain themselves. Since West Africa had not yet been favorable to settlement, due to its dense forests, the central Saharans may represent some of the early ancestors of some of these peoples. http://www.h-net.org/~africa/biblio/Winshall.html

posted 29 April 2004 10:57 PM            

1. I agree with what you've said about west/central Africans possibly having a common Sub-Saharan African ancestor with AE's. However, many have noted, including yourself, that West Africa was scarcely populatd even as late as 3500 years ago. Gadalla notes that the population explosion in West/Central Africa coincided with the Arab invasion of Egypt.

Now keep in mind that I have no interest in claiming descent from AE as I have no idea who my ancestors are and at this point I don't really care. I realize that you have not gotten caught up in this nonsense, but others have. I simply seek the truth. Would you say that many of the African groups that Gadalla mention are descended from the Egyptians that fled Egypt are not in fact descendants? And if so, what data do you have support the opinion.

I'm not saying that all west/central African groups are descended from AE's, but from what I've seen so far, the possibility is strong that some are. And for those that don't know, Moustafa Gadalla is an Egyptian.

2. The fascination with Egypt seems to be universal, like you mentioned. But first, let's remember that this is a forum about ancient Egypt, not Africa as a whole. I personally enjoy learing about the entire continent, but here I have to keep those ideas to myself.

Also, materials about Egypt are far more accessible. That's just the world we live in. I have a friend that was in his 20's and he didn't even know that Egypt was in Africa. I'm no longer in school, and I'm too lazy to visit larger libraries. So most of my reading materials come from bookstores. There's just many more materials on Egypt.

posted 29 April 2004 11:34 PM            

Study of pre-history of Africa is very vital to understanding AE soceity,and will benefit anybody who wants further reserch. However,I do have a Forum dedicated to pre-colonial Western and Central Africa.

posted 30 April 2004 12:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun:
I'm not an expert on this topic but I've never heard anything like it before. The closest I've read to that theory is that West Africa had been settled relatively recently by people who originated in the Sahara. People inhabited East, Central, and South Africa much, much earlier.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 30 April 2004 12:21 AM            

Thought Writes:

Which African-Americans are you refering to. I have not seen any African-Americans posting that Nigerians or people from Ghana are genetically (?) closer to Ancient Egyptians than modern Egyptians. So again who are you refering to?

posted 30 April 2004 12:25 AM            

I don't think I ever argued against the fact that Ancient Egyptians have a wide african base. I just don't buy that AE are the same Africans that ended up in USA.

Thought Writes:

posted 30 April 2004 12:30 AM            

Thank you for poiniting out that the more south you go the more Negroid they appear, so you conceed that the more north you go the more un-negroid egyptians appear. So why are we having this argument. Why do black americans want to claim ancient egypt as thier own?

Thought Writes:

The north/south gradation for negroid traits is temporally related. The earlier one goes in Egyptian history the more "negroid" physical features become common in the delta and the Levant. Of course as the Natufian culture spread out from the fertile crescent trade relationships were probably developed with the physical types north of the Black Sea.

posted 30 April 2004 12:45 AM            

some one made an argumnet earlier that african people were living in the Sahara and 2000 years ago they filled the rest of the contenint. This can't be possibly true.

Thought Writes:

My statement was that MOST Black Africans lived in north Africa prior the last 2000 years. This of course is a rough estimate with variations existing in different places. There were bands of hunter gatherers that lived all over Africa, but these populations have been largely replaced and absorbed by Africans moving south. My model is thus:

1) At the end of the pliestocene, Africa had higher populations densities than Eurasia.

2) Population density is related to subsistance technology and the ability of particular populations to sustain themselves.

3) By the early Holocene North Africans (who were phenotypically Sub-Saharan in origin) had evolved a set of subsistance technologies that allowed their populations expand. These technologies include, but are not limited to:

A) Pottery
B) Boat building techniques
C) Domestic Cattle
D) Agriculture

and

E) Deep water fishing

4) These technologies allowed North African population density to exceed other regions of Africa

5) Ecolologically the forest regions of Africa were exteremly wet and disease infested. These regions were unsuitable for human adaptation until the dry phase circa 4000BC

posted 30 April 2004 12:48 AM            

Some African Americans have Fulani and Tuareg ancestry which have been linked to the elongated African type in the early Nile Valley. Majority,though,do come from Western and Central Africa.

Thought Writes:

posted 30 April 2004 12:53 AM            

The media does a good job of ignoring other parts of Africa that deserve attention. African Americans are only exposed to Egyptian culture so this is what they associate themselves with. I feel that more emphasis should be placed on other regions in Africa besides just Egypt.

White Americans are just as obcessed with claiming Egypt. The Eurocentrists should also be pointed out for spreading racist myths about modern and ancient Egyptians. Eurocentric 19th and 20th century scholars have probabaly done way more damage than African Americans have done

Thought Writes:

posted 30 April 2004 12:55 AM            

Thought Writes:

The Saharans also shared a common ancestry with Dynastic Egyptians.

posted 30 April 2004 01:57 AM            

Where do you get the information about African prehistory from? Could you tell me where the modern Berbers come from? When did these populations move into Africa,or did these populations evovle from Metcha-Aflou and Taroflat[sp] populations. Please help me understand more about the prehistory of northern Africa.

Have you read Feriki Hassan's paper on the Sahara and Dyanstic Egypt?

What is your opinion of the Tassil Najjer rock paintings or the ones around Libya?

posted 30 April 2004 02:10 AM            

Could you tell me where the modern Berbers come from? When did these populations move into Africa,or did these populations evovle from Metcha-Aflou and Taroflat[sp] populations.

Thought Writes:

posted 30 April 2004 02:15 AM            

What is your opinion of the Tassil Najjer rock paintings or the ones around Libya?

Thought Writes:

There is a clear iconographic tradition that builds from the Sahara to the hieroglyphics of Egypt.

posted 30 April 2004 03:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ausar:
[B] Thought,

Could you tell me where the modern Berbers come from? When did these populations move into Africa,or did these populations evovle from Metcha-Aflou and Taroflat[sp] populations.

Thought Writes:

In my opinion the Berbers are heterogenous and come from many different sources. Obviously there is a root in the Sudanese region from whence the Afro-Asiatic family derived. I do believe that the PRIMARY root of the Maghrebian Berbers is the Metcha-Aflou and Taroflat types. The Taroflat crania seem to have continuities with European Cro-Magnon populations. Then again the Cro-Magnons were tropically adapted. The Afalou crania have affinities with tropical African types. The Carthaginian remains are heterogenous with "Mediteranean types" dominating. There were constant incursions and migrations into this region from 2000BC. Roman historical records indicate Black, Mulatto and Semetic types residing in NW Africa during the Roman period.

---

There was obviously some migration into north Africa from eastern Africa. Here's one such source to confirm it.

The haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) was found in 77.2 % of the male Somali population, in 6.3 % of Iraqi males and in 1.7 % of male Turks whereas E3b1* was not found in Sub-Saharan Western African males. The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is
the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup.
Furthermore, the results are in agreement with a gene flow from Eastern to Northern Africa from a homeland in Somalia

Y-Chromosome analysis of the Somali population suggests the origin of the haplogroup E3b1

Now some people, most notably Dienekes Pontikos, will say that this allele isn't Negroid because it is lacking in a sample of west African sub-Saharan males, thereby wrongfully implying that the allele isn't "sub-Saharan." There are other genes(H35, H36, and even U6 which can be either of sub-Saharan or Near Eastern origin). The point is that North Africans are not some genetic isolates that branch cleanly and completely off from sub-Saharans. You brought up an interesting point about Berber culture partly deriving from the Sudan area. This could be correct since it is believed that the Aterian cultural complex had its origins in sub-Saharan Africa in the Sudanese region. Read this:

Ph. Van Peer, "A review of the Late Middle Pleistocene and Early Upper Pleistocene cultural developments in the Middle and Lower Nile Valley" -

He said that the best evidence for the Middle to Upper Pleistocene transition comes from Sai island in the Sudan with Sangoan to Acheulian levels. Around 300,000 years ago the transition started in Eastern Africa. Farther north (ie. Sudan) the transition occurred around 200,000 years ago. He found many Sangoan grinding stones (sandstone) which were used for grinding pigments, lumps of which were also found in situ. They found as well grinding stones with indication that they had been used for processing plant material. Then the Sangoan large tools were replaced by blade tools. Afterwards, these were in their turn replaced by Nubian levallois tools. Then the foliates disappeared and were replaced by the Nubian Aterian complex. Then the Aterian emerged, probably in the area of southern Egypt, northern Sudan and southern Libya from where it spread to the west into the Sahara and to northern Africa. Then about 70,000 years ago a blade tool technology appeared, involving a very specialized division of work and a complex social organization. The time covered by this study goes between about 225,000 to 25,000 years ago.
http://www.geocities.com/juanjosecastillos/english.html

Ph. Van Peer, "Survey of Paleolithic sites on Sai Island (Northern Sudan)" -

He found many sites of quartz lithic implements, many of them stratified. He confined himself to one special site of those found, an area of 30,000 square metres with three layers, one of middle paleolithic mixed to some extent with neolithic tools and two other later layers. Over the underlying Nubian sandstone he found a layer with stone boulders associated to Acheulian tools. They tried, sometimes successfully, to reassemble the original nucleus by re-grouping the tools but with quartz it is a difficult task. They found then a break represented by a layer with boulders associated to re-worked Acheulian tools and over this, another with stones which he called grinding stones and which have one of their sides smooth (polished). On top of that there was a layer of black silt and then a layer of Middle Paleolithic occupation. The raw material (quartz) was brought to the site as nuclei that were processed in situ. They seem to have been normal habitational sites like those found in later Nubian phases. On top of this there was a layer which he called "Aterian" but that was very deteriorated. Many boulders over this top layer may have helped prevent further erosion of this site. He pointed out that in his opinion the origin of the Aterian should be found in Sub-Saharan Africa.
http://www.geocities.com/henslater/index3.html

Basically what I'm saying is that since the Aterian had its origins in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is no wonder that many of the Afalou found by Colin Groves were sub-Saharan influenced. This coupled with the genetic, linguistic, and cultural data make a good case for migration of sub-Saharans into North Africa at the very earliest of times. Thus no one can say that North Africans and sub-Saharans(usless term)are totally unrelated in any way.

[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 30 April 2004).]

posted 30 April 2004 08:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Kem-au, it is important to know about archaeology of other African areas to understand indepth where exactly the AE population came from. More evidence is being found that some of the pre-dyanstic ancestors of the ancient Egyptians come from regions like the Sahara.

Study of pre-history of Africa is very vital to understanding AE soceity,and will benefit anybody who wants further reserch. However,I do have a Forum dedicated to pre-colonial Western and Central Africa.

---

posted 30 April 2004 11:30 AM            

Said Mohammed,thanks for the information concerning the formation of prehistoric Northern Africa. I wonder if this gene flow from Somali into Maghreb explains the Tuareg people. Many Tuaregs according to Sfoza have close genetic ties to the Cushic Beja people in Sudan. Could this explain such link? Anybody thought of testing the Fulani to see if this halpotype is found amungst them? How about the rate fo Yap + in Magrebian Berbers?

posted 01 May 2004 02:10 AM            

To answer you question about the Delta and Upper Egypt is that this is a very complex answer that has not yet been fully solved with modern science. Some remains in Lower Egypt have been found to be negriod during the pre-dyanstic period;while others have been found to be Intermediates between Costal Northern African types. Of course there is probabaly some Mediterranean and Western Asian admixture that existed in the Delta region since pre-dyanstic times.

What you must understand is that the Dyanstic Egyptians came from formations during the pre-Dyanstic period, Already during this time period Upper Egypt was predominatley negriod;while the Northern region of Egypt was clearly more of a mixture than in the south. What occured over a period of time was the merging of the North and south either through intermarriage or through warfare as depicted on the Narmer palatte.

In the previous section of Egyptians Living Abroad,I pointed this out to you when you asked what race Egyptians consider themselves. It is clear to me that diversity amung modern Egyptians clearly existed within the Pre-dyanstic onto the Dyanstic period. Of course, admixture with Western Asian Hykos,Libyans[ancient Berbers],and other groups in later period added somewhat to the diversity of the Egyptian population,but never permantley replaced it.

Egypt's population before the Mohammed Ali period was estimated to be no more than 3 million people but expanded to current demographics through increased birth rates. Ever since the pharoanic times Egyptians have had low mortality rates that left a population of mostly younger adult and less females. We determined that the ancient Egyptian population was a non-expnading population that was heavily burdened by infant mortality. Population demographics usually stayed around the 1-3 million mark.

Karl Butzer has estimated that two areas of greatest population
denisty in dyanstic times were between Luxor{Waset} and Aswan
{Elephantine} at the first cataract,and from Medium at the fayum
entrance northwards to the apex of the Delta.
IN between was Middle Egypt,a geogrpahic buffer zone with a lower
population density. It is worth bearing in mind that the total
population of egypt at the time the Giza pyramids were built is
estimated to have been 1.6 million,compared with 58 million in Ad
1995.

Page 7

Mark Lehner

THe complete Pyramids

What happened was that the regions of Lower Egypt because of modernization that ensured higher birth rates than in the south. This was all possible because of the modern convenances that Mohammed Ali made in Egypt,so I believe that the population numbers for modern Egypt might be the North instead of the south when it was in more ancient times. Southern demographic predominated in antiquity;while in modern times it is the north that predominates.

posted 08 May 2004 01:51 AM            

I don't mean to jump off the Egyptian topic too far, but I just want to give my opinion on a few things. I'm not into any "Afro-centric" movement, but what bugs me is that anytime something is seen as "black" there seems to first be this denial, and then if there is some acknowledgment that a people or a place is "black" in some way, there is always an explaining away of it, or it is demeaned.

I have not read everything that was posted, but I'm certainly going to go back through this thread, but I just had to vent my frustration at this.

African-Americans or blacks or whatever you want to call us, as we all know, have a serious identity problem. We are almost like the "motherless child." The only cultural identity we have is an American one and because of our history in this country, it has been very difficult to feel fully American, in my opinion.

The problem is, we have no other cultural identity. So we have been reaching for some connection to our past and some acknowledgement that we do have a home base have contributed to the world landscape.

On this quest to fill our void, we have looked to Africa for the answers, and have embraced all things African, whether or not we have any cultural connection or not. I agree that in our zeal to "belong" to a place, we are willing to latch on to any and everything we deem as black, even if that is not the way they perceive themselves.

Now, even though I understand intellectually that everyone is not "black", as I don't believe in "race", I do however find it interesting that people have no problem aligning themselves with European groups, or calling themselves white or caucasion but when it comes to any black or African affiliation, there seems to be so much objection.

Now back to Egypt... I'm far from a scientist, but it seems like a common sense thing to me. Egypt is on the African continent. Of course, there is going to be a dark population...of course some will be very "negroid" looking...of course there is going to be an exchange of culture among the peoples of the continent, just as on the continents of Europe and Asia.

Why is it such a stretch that other black cultures on the continent could have influenced the culture of their close neighbor and vice versa?

In my opinion, people continue to pass over the richness of the various cultures of black people all over the world. Usually, dark people, whereever they are have some of the most mystic, and interesting cultures of any, but the world continues to disregard them because they have not met the standard of "civilization" that other cultures have.

posted 08 May 2004 11:27 AM            

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that "I do however find it interesting that people have no problem aligning themselves with European groups, or calling themselves white or caucasion but when it comes to any black or African affiliation, there seems to be so much objection."

European association with all things Greco-Roman is never questioned. They were the first European civilizations. We learn about them by name in school, we read their works, and we name our cities and sports teams after them, etc. All is good in the world, even though there may be no actual links among some of these modern European groups and the Greeks and Romans.

But when an African American mentions Egypt we must be immediately reminded that African Americans came primarily from West and Central Africa. This nonsense must simply be ignored if you wish to find the truth about any African cultures, including the ancient Egyptians.

The attempt to disconnect Egypt from the rest of Africa was deliberate and is on going. There is a reason why Egyptians movies and documentaries made in the U.S. feature mostly white actors. There is a reason why you simply do not hear about where the Egyptians said that they came from and why their own sources are infrequently used as references when we read books about them. There's a reason why archaeologists will refer to Alexander the Great and Napolean so often in these Egyptian documentaries we see on the discovery channel.

posted 08 May 2004 05:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Hi Bunni and welcome. Your post was interesting to read. One thing that you'll notice if you haven't already, is that race discussions will warrant many responses. Often because they go off on many tangents, but also because many people have their own opinions. We must be very careful however because many of these opinions are why we have these conversations in the first place.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that "I do however find it interesting that people have no problem aligning themselves with European groups, or calling themselves white or caucasion but when it comes to any black or African affiliation, there seems to be so much objection."

European association with all things Greco-Roman is never questioned. They were the first European civilizations. We learn about them by name in school, we read their works, and we name our cities and sports teams after them, etc. All is good in the world, even though there may be no actual links among some of these modern European groups and the Greeks and Romans.

But when an African American mentions Egypt we must be immediately reminded that African Americans came primarily from West and Central Africa. This nonsense must simply be ignored if you wish to find the truth about any African cultures, including the ancient Egyptians.

The attempt to disconnect Egypt from the rest of Africa was deliberate and is on going. There is a reason why Egyptians movies and documentaries made in the U.S. feature mostly white actors. There is a reason why you simply do not hear about where the Egyptians said that they came from and why their own sources are infrequently used as references when we read books about them. There's a reason why archaeologists will refer to Alexander the Great and Napolean so often in these Egyptian documentaries we see on the discovery channel.

I don't buy this "Egypt was a melting pot" crap. The world is a melting pot. The term African American simply means that you have African ancestry (the most genetically diverse continent on the planet), and that you live in America. We are an extremely diverse people as well. This is not about descent, it's about the truth. You must be strong enough to see through the B.S. if you want to learn anyhting useful about the African continent.

---