posted
The only ones nuts in here are the trolls Debunked, SirIgnoramus, Assopen, Gaygoyle, and of course Marc! To call the rest of us 'nuts' might mean YOU belong in the list as well! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
osirion is definitely a weirdo. Don't respect the guy's style at all; he'd be better off just staying out of matters that he looks stupid trying to address.
Anyways, Debunked's constant spamming of that one source while disregarding newer references that clearly diverge from his ONE appeal to authority definitely suggests that the guy be ignored until he can actually present a coherent argument as opposed to being a typical Euro hack.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Of course it is based on opinions, moron, but "objectively" -- i.e. not your disorganized "subjective" medicentric fanaticism/cultism.
quote: and "common sense" of amateur Afronut bloggers.
...which remains standing as ever, since you offer no refutation, save for moanin' and bitchin' about it, like an infant girl. Not bad for an amateur, wouldn't you say?
Remember that your "opinion" was swiftly squashed here, precisely because it fails to adhere to the basic principles of genetics -- i.e. nothing more than a rambling of a lunatic. If your rambling were an "opinion" that actually conformed to standard principles of genetics, then we might simply be expected to do what you do: presume that we can spinelessly hide from common-sensitive material simply by acknowledging it for what it is, 'opinion' like every other human expression of ideas, while like an idiot, think that this constitutes a rebuttal.
quote: Get some evidence.
You bet; here:
* DE* is a descendant clade of M168. M168 is undoubtedly African; this fact alone makes it more than probable that this place [Africa] is also likely where DE* emerged.
* DE* is more common in Africa than outside of it -
It has been identified in African samples in more than one accasion in separately-conducted studies, having been identified in 5 Nigerian sampling candidates in one study, and 1 Guinean individual in another. On the other hand, it had purportedly been identified in only 2 Tibetan sampling candidates. So we have 6 African cases vs. 2 Asian cases.
* DE*'s internal phylogeny is more diverse and widely distributed in Africa -
Considering the greater internal phylogenetic branching of haplogroup E vs haplogroup D, it can be suggestive of either 1) longer time-depth for haplogroup E explosion/expansion, and hence, implicating DE* being around longer in Africa, as the homeland of haplogroup E ...
Or
2) that the haplogroup E lineage experienced an explosion that the D counterparts did not achieve in more or less the same time depth. The question becomes: What could account for this?
Either way, with fact being that African Hg E internal phylogeny is more elaborate than Hg D, the end result suggests that the intensity of such intra-E phylogenetic explosion seems to have had some level of erasing effect on DE* distribution. Given the greater pressure, due to greater demic explosion brought to bear on preexisting DE* in Africa mainly by its own sub-phylogeny than that which would have been the case in Asia by the YAP+ counterpart sub-phylogeny there, it's amazing that DE* is relentlessly visible enough in the African gene pool, as demonstrated by its greater chance detectability here than elsewhere, including Asia. This suggests that DE* would have been more widely distributed in Africa than in Asia, having been able to withstand greater pressure from greater subsequent demic expansion of Hg E phylogeny than that involving Hg D phylogeny, respectively in Africa and Asia.
The distribution and internal branching of Hg D suggests, on the other hand, that it involved lower scale dispersal of Hg D*, which were relatively more controlled in their subsequent expansion. The distribution pattern for instance, shows that the major subclades of D in different territories are highly differentiated and generally sharply geographically-structured, being confined to territorial spheres. At least that is the image reflected, if one goes by what's professed in the ISOGG.org website, whatever may be said of the credibility:
"Sub-group D1 (D-M15) is seen in Tibet, Mongolia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, and the sub-groups D* (D-M174) and D3 (D-P47) are seen in Central Asia. The sub-group D2 (D-M55) is seen almost exclusively in Japan." - ISOGG.org
Hg D* is presumably also identified in the Andaman Islands.
* A hypothetical Hg DE* back-to-Africa migration seems to have been elusive in leaving genetic tracks behind, presumably from south Asia to Africa -
The supposed back-migrants would seem to have left no genetic tracks behind in a hypothetical destination from southern Asia via the Arabian peninsula, eastern Africa through to African interior, in a hypothetical back-to-Africa migration scenario. If they did, then it had been thoroughly erased by multiple demographic shifts. Hg D's distribution in south Asia, with rare to no presence in territories between that region and Africa, is however explained by founder effect of OOA migrants, already carrying Hg DE* amongst them.
Chandrasekar's speculation is highly questionable for the same reasons just stated above; see:
"Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (~31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998). This E lineage back-migrated to Africa through the Levant as hypothesized by Hammer et al. (1997) and Altheide and Hammer (1997)." - Chandrasekar et al.
Hg D is rare to absent in the Levant, and conversely, Hg E is virtually rare to absent in populations that do carry Hg D.
Furthermore, Hg E's presence in the so-called Near East, including the Levant and Europe, serves as gene flow from Africa, because Africa is where the entire Hg E phylogeny occurs, not the Levant. All upstream Hg E markers are exclusively found in Africa, and essentially none in the Levant.
The so-called Near East has far much lower frequencies of Hg E than in mainland Africa, and all of these happen to be subclades of African counterparts. Much of these subclades are relegated to the P2 (PN2) phylogeny. Upstream PN2 clades as generally known, only occur in Africa.
Revisiting Chandrasekar's post again,...
"Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (~31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998)." - Chandrasekar et al.
It is also of note that Chandrasekar conveniently ignores that DE* has been found in Africa as well, but in even greater frequencies than his personal favored region [aka second point above], i.e. Asia, not to mention that it is essentially non-existent in the so-called Mediterranean or the Levant. With DE* being in Africa, it is not necessary for Hg E to have come from the Levant, for reasons just mentioned and the ones immediately above this last Chandrasekar citation. Instead, Chandrasekar relies heavily on outdated studies, when Hg E phylogeny, as with many others, were in their early stages of being resolved.
His statement above, about "some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation" has also implications that Chandrasekar seems to have overlooked:
* Common sense intimates that any hypothetical DE* back-to-Africa migration and it would have to have been major enough would have been pooled from a newly situated migrant group. The keywords here: "newly situated".
Recalling Weale et al....
"the presence of the DE* haplogroup has the effect of forcing an earlier date for the most recent common ancestor of all African YAP chromosomes. This reduces the possible time window within which a back-migration to Africa could have occurred under the scenario of an Asian origin for YAP. - Weale et al. 2003, Rare Deep-Rooting Y Chromosome Lineages in Humans." - Weale et al.
Indeed! The presence of DE* in Africa suggests that this lineage was in place very shortly after its emergence. The OOA migrants had just recently left Africa for a reason; what on earth would these folks, who had just arrived, go back to Africa for, and at such a gruesomely long distance from a south Asian refuge? Pending tangible evidence of a compelling motive, it makes little sense.
And even if one were to take a hypothetical Asian origin of DE* for granted, based on skin pigmentation allele examinations, the original carriers of these markers would have closely resembled contemporary "black Africans", and even then, Hg E would still not be Asian [considering points above].
Let's face it; it's really not all that complicated: It just so happens that Hg D exists in Asia, while Hg E plays a dominating role in Africa, well, because DE* markers were present in both. Simple enough, isn't it?!
Neither territory has the other respective sub-clade lineage, because these emerged after OOA migrations, understandably.
Not sure why finding DE* therefore, surprises anyone. It's the only way D could have arrived in south Asia sans E; thus, DE* chromosomes brought in from Africa would have to have been around, in order for D to emerge, there is no other way around it. It is also the reason one finds DE* in both Africa, the origin point of destination, and Asia, the destination. However, instead of looking at it that way, some complicate things for themselves, and say that in order for DE* to be in Asia, it surely must have emerged there, and that there is no other way around that.
The most parsimonious explanation generally tends to reduce the number of questions for each answer that it provides than the alternative. In this case, an African origin entailing DE* dispersal in a OOA migration event, paving way for a founder effect situation in southern Asia is the most parsimonious.
The question now is, whether you'll swap your bright flowery skirt for grown-up men pants, and answer to science. Little girl, get to work.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The only ones nuts in here are the trolls Debunked, SirIgnoramus, Assopen, Gaygoyle, and of course Marc! To call the rest of us 'nuts' might mean YOU belong in the list as well!
Aren't you the same guys that insists that Ramses II was 100% Black African? I think that is nuts. Its possible that he was but at the same time it is more likely he was a mixture of Semitic, Libyan and East African.
Also, Afro-Nuts insist that the Upper Egyptians under Menes was conquering other Black North Africans? That the Lower Egyptians in pre-dynastic times were pure Black Africans.
I think thats nuts.
Clearly the Africans taming the beast are Ethiopian type Black East Africans where as the person being trampled on at the bottom is likely Semitic.
To insist on a Pure Black only Egypt I think is nutty but not as Nutty as White Egyptians of course.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: osirion is definitely a weirdo. Don't respect the guy's style at all; he'd be better off just staying out of matters that he looks stupid trying to address.
Anyways, Debunked's constant spamming of that one source while disregarding newer references that clearly diverge from his ONE appeal to authority definitely suggests that the guy be ignored until he can actually present a coherent argument as opposed to being a typical Euro hack.
My style? I simply disagree with you on this one. You have been very helpful to me on other issues and have done an excellent job in supporting you position. However, Shi et al doesn't work in this regards to the origin question of DE* and subsequently E. Though one only needs common sense to recognize the highly improbable likelihood of DE* being SE Asian derived.
However, stranger things have been discovered.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Debunker has provided an excellent topic that needs to be discussed further.
DE* found in Tibet is most interesting but not likely to mean much but deserves our attention.
Obviously Debunker cannot argue that DE* is Caucasian since the Andamanese are clearly not.
This picture is getting more and more interesting all the time:
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ Only thing he'll work on is some retarded spin as total refutation is impossible!
If by some retarded spin you are referring to emotionalism, then yes. The radical medicentric loon will simply come crying back, stuck on broken record: "opinion", "opinion", "opinion",... Me offer this one-liner because me cannot in any semblance, challenge said "opinion".
Me think just saying "opinion" = refutation.
Me think me fool other morons like me, by this meaningless one-liner cop-out
LOL
The loon's sheer stupidity is as funny as it is tragic.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Aren't you the same guys that insists that Ramses II was 100% Black African? I think that is nuts. Its possible that he was but at the same time it is more likely he was a mixture of Semitic, Libyan and East African.
Exactly what is so "nuts" about an African king being 100% African??! You say that it is more likely that he was of mixed Asiatic and Libyan (I take it 'white') as well as black ancestry but exactly where is the evidence to suggest this?!!
quote:Also, Afro-Nuts insist that the Upper Egyptians under Menes was conquering other Black North Africans? That the Lower Egyptians in pre-dynastic times were pure Black Africans.
I think thats nuts.
Clearly the Africans taming the beast are Ethiopian type Black East Africans where as the person being trampled on at the bottom is likely Semitic.
And where exactly on the palette is this interpretation of yours "clear"??! As has been remarked by most scholars, the features of the supposed northerners are not much different from the alleged southerners..
And what is clear is from examination of the physical remains:
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."---Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 7-105)
quote:To insist on a Pure Black only Egypt I think is nutty but not as Nutty as White Egyptians of course.
Again, what is so "nutty" about a nation in Africa being all black?! I just don't see it. But what I do see is your bias I take it out of some twisted Jewish ethnocentrism that truly has become nutty!-- Asiatic (you presume Jewish ancestors) responsible for northern Egyptian culture and therefore co-founding Egypt!
We've been over your claims countless times before! It just ain't so. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The people of Ma'adi were among the communities of Asiatic peoples who were still productively active in the north at the time it was invaded and their communities destroyed. The Asiatics suffered a cruel thanks for the technology and culture they had introduced. "Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement. If so, then perhaps this was the "final solution' arranged for the heterogenous society of Ma'adi by the victorious kings of the First Dynasty."11
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: My style? I simply disagree with you on this one. You have been very helpful to me on other issues and have done an excellent job in supporting you position. However, Shi et al doesn't work in this regards to the origin question of DE* and subsequently E. Though one only needs common sense to recognize the highly improbable likelihood of DE* being SE Asian derived.
However, stranger things have been discovered.
osirion. Thanx for the compliment but I just don't appreciate how you go about loosely referring to everyone as "Afronuts" or "Euronuts". You throw insults at people so casually. Your point of disagreement isn't an issue, it's your polarizing language.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Your thread makes it sound as if this debate is over.
Let's just say that the debate has been reignited in a big way, and this makes Afrocentrists very nervous and angry, especially when they don't have any evidence to refute the new studies. We'll see what the future holds.
Of course, there's never been consensus on the origin of haplogroup E. The Afrocentrists just chose to believe what they wanted/needed to believe ("emotionally driven religious cultism"). But ISOGG, which summarizes developments and debates in the field, has always included both the African and Asian models:
"Y-DNA haplogroup E probably arose in Northeast Africa, if one looks only at the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration. Today E* is found predominantly in Ethiopia. E1 and E2 are found in Northeast Africa, but surveys show E1 may actually be more prevalent in Mali than in its presumed region of origin. E4 is a minor subclade. E3 is by far the lineage of greatest geographical distribution. It has two important sub-lineages, E3a and E3b. E3a is an African lineage that probably expanded from northern Africa to sub-Saharan and equatorial Africa with the Bantu agricultural expansion. E3a is the most common lineage among African Americans. E3b probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea. E3b clusters are seen today in Western Europe, the Balkans, the Near East, Northeast Africa and Northwest Africa. The Cruciani articles (references and links below) are indispensable resources for understanding the structure of this complicated haplogroup."
Seen it before (wiki's retarded over parroted sorry excuse for a source -- well, nothing against isogg but claiming non-Africa origin for lineages that originate South of the Sahara & only show up outside of it in downstream lineages means somebody needs some help is all).
posted
Reminder: For anybody with a brain cell, and is not a radical 'medicentric' wacko, this works just fine in summing up the blog post, though again, not really required for support, since the post obviously stands well on its own:
haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval. - Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild, Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: QUOTE]Aren't you the same guys that insists that Ramses II was 100% Black African? I think that is nuts. Its possible that he was but at the same time it is more likely he was a mixture of Semitic, Libyan and East African.
Also, Afro-Nuts insist that the Upper Egyptians under Menes was conquering other Black North Africans? That the Lower Egyptians in pre-dynastic times were pure Black Africans.
I think thats nuts.
Can you provide an example of any serious poster here claiming that "Lower Egyptians in pre-dynastic times were pure Black Africans"? or any of the your other claims? Go ahead. Let's see what you got. While you are at it- what's your definition of the term you use- "Black African"? and how do you define "pure" in relation to "Black African"? You use the terms- so what are your definitions?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I don't know about any "pure" black Africans but that citation you posted is "pure" garbage.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Hoffman, Ibid., 214
The people of Ma'adi were among the communities of Asiatic peoples who were still productively active in the north at the time it was invaded and their communities destroyed. The Asiatics suffered a cruel thanks for the technology and culture they had introduced. "Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement. If so, then perhaps this was the "final solution' arranged for the heterogenous society of Ma'adi by the victorious kings of the First Dynasty."11
Hold on there. The blurb you post is taken from a website (Hebrew history) dedicated to arguing for and magnifying the reputed Semitic influence in forming Egypt. Among other things it repeats the old Dynastic Race Theory- namely, in the beginning Egypt was crude and primitive. Then an influx of advanced Asiatics (Semites) came along, and there was light. The Semites allegedly introduced agriculture to the natives who did not know how to farm or domesticate cattle or plants, introduced advanced tools, and even introduced a more democratic style living in contrast to those evil hierarchial natives. This cosy picture is quite shaky however on several counts.
For one thing, the pattern of peoples in Lower Egypt, while more variable in terms of crania than the South, clustered towards African types as shown in modern limb proportion studies. In any event, both Lower and Upper Egyptians clustered much more towards each other than the reputed "Semitic civilizers" or "Aryan" ones for that matter. (Zakrewski 2007, Keita 92, 93, 04,05, Kemp 2005, Lovell 1999, etc etc)
quote:
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 50-55
Second the much more reliable Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt By Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert (2002) debunks "Semitic influx" notions, showing that Ma'adi most likely developed from indigenous roots. quote: pg 23 "The Ma'adi culture, named after the site of Ma'adi located south of present day Cairo, most likely evolved from indigenous Neolithic cultures."
It also shows that the main overall weight or direction of cultural expansion was South-> North. The bulk of the most important sites and cultural areas were in the South, Naqada, Abydos, etc etc.. If civilization was due to alleged 'Caucasoids" or "Semites" from the north or Sinai, this would not have been the pattern. The north did have significant trade in some areas, and amassed its own sophiscated zones of wealth and crafts, but it was hardly alone in this gioventhe contact between north and south and the ultimate tide of advance rolled from the south.
quote:
"Possibly there was first a more or less peaceful movement or migrations(s) of Nagada culture peoples from south to north, as suggested by archaeological evidence of Nagada culture in the Fayum region. The final unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under one rule may have been achieved by military conquest(s) in the north, but there is not much evidence for this aside from scenes carved on stylistically late Predynastic palettes... There was undoubtedly heightened commerical contact with southwest Asia in the late fourth millennium BC, but the Early Dynastic state in Egypt was unique and indigenous in character." p. 29 Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt By Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert
Third the dramatic claims of fire, destruction and "final solutions" appear much less than advertised. As noted by the Encyclopedia above, such a "holocaust" appears unlikely. Ash on the old Maadi site could be merely ash from various mining and craft operations. And indeed, just this is said by the touregyt.com website's page on Maadi which uses the Hoffman reference among others. Apparently touregyt did not find any fiery Holocausts at Maadi.
quote:
[i] "Substantial ash deposits also point to industrial activities... Its ultimate abandonment, however, may have been due to the ease with which its location was imitated by the ancient capital of Egypt, Memphis, located only ten kilometers north of Maadi. Another contributory factor may have also been the fact that after the unification of Egypt, its rulers sought to control and exclude the nomads that undoubtedly provided considerable trade goods to the area." http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/maadi.htm
Well! Hardly the dramatic "final solution" imposed by the conquering 'Negroes' on dem there sensitive northerners.
Sunddjata said:
"You're the one who posted that random nonsense. Defend it.. "
How do you define "Black Africans"? How do you define "pure" in relation to said "Blacks"? Is it true that your Semites Asiatics introduced civilization to the natives? Was there indeed a "holocaust" imposed on Maadi? You advanced these claims. Defend them. Let's see what you got.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: My style? I simply disagree with you on this one. You have been very helpful to me on other issues and have done an excellent job in supporting you position. However, Shi et al doesn't work in this regards to the origin question of DE* and subsequently E. Though one only needs common sense to recognize the highly improbable likelihood of DE* being SE Asian derived.
However, stranger things have been discovered.
osirion. Thanx for the compliment but I just don't appreciate how you go about loosely referring to everyone as "Afronuts" or "Euronuts". You throw insults at people so casually. Your point of disagreement isn't an issue, it's your polarizing language.
At first (a while back) i just saw the comments with "Afro-nuts" as facetious if not satirical and now i just see them as corny.
Not only does his somewhat awkward and corny use of "Afro-nuts" get old fast, but as you noted i'm starting to think he really does ultimately think of this as a debate between two polarized monoliths, Euro- and Afro- ethnocentrists (originally DumbEuro/Euro-Disney/Debunked's own coinage: "while the Afro-nuts are busy creaming themselves over Brace 2005 ... " but coming from him it's funny cuz he has a serious problem)
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's the big deal here?why can't folks just look at Africa as they would any other continent,that people moved around setup trading centers that grew into cities that grew into kingdoms and eventually empires,that they then had contact with other folks outside Africa trading and warfaring.Why insist on a continent full of people needing out side help for problem solving,I mean Africa is full of Africans because they were successfull.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: How do you define "Black Africans"? How do you define "pure" in relation to said "Blacks"? Is it true that your Semites Asiatics introduced civilization to the natives? Was there indeed a "holocaust" imposed on Maadi? You advanced these claims. Defend them. Let's see what you got.
I defended my claim when I post a source. As for civilization, the source did not claim that. It merely claimed technology and culture trade. East Africans were already practicing what is known as Egyptian culture in Upper Egypt well before the 1st dynasty. So the real question you should be asking me is WHAT technology and cultural components were assimilated into the existing Nubian/Egyptian regions from Asiatics that were either assimilated or wiped out.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ackee: What's the big deal here?why can't folks just look at Africa as they would any other continent,that people moved around setup trading centers that grew into cities that grew into kingdoms and eventually empires,that they then had contact with other folks outside Africa trading and warfaring.Why insist on a continent full of people needing out side help for problem solving,I mean Africa is full of Africans because they were successfull.
True, but Afro-Nuts try to claim complete isolation. It is unnecessary since European civilizations were not isolated from Africans and Asiatics either.
I simply claim that there were quite a few Semitic trading centers in Lower Egypt in pre-dynastic times. Not sure what precipitated the war against them but they were clearly destroyed and evidence shows absorption of their maternal lineage.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
osirion. No you didn't. You simply posted trash from a Hebrew nationalist web page and expected people to take it at face value. Also, you should stop ignoring zaharan's points. That is very unscholarly.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ See, just what I am talking about. Nutty!
No we don't see what you're talking about as everything in my response to your claims is totally logical. Then again, seeing is in the mind of the beholder so of course an irrational 'nutty' person could see alot of things despite reality.
quote: Hoffman, Ibid., 214
The people of Ma'adi were among the communities of Asiatic peoples who were still productively active in the north at the time it was invaded and their communities destroyed. The Asiatics suffered a cruel thanks for the technology and culture they had introduced. "Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement. If so, then perhaps this was the "final solution' arranged for the heterogenous society of Ma'adi by the victorious kings of the First Dynasty."11
LMAO This is obviously taken from a Jewish psuedo-scholarly source as not only is there no evidence of Asiatic communities in the Delta during predynastic times but definitely no evidence of a "holocaust" against them!! As Zarahan clearly shows in the multiple true scholarly sources he cites, the Delta people did indeed cultural implements from Asiatics via trade but that did not mean they themselves were Asiatic!!
Jeesh, first the Nordicists, then the Medicentrists, and now the Jewcentrists!! It seems every centrism is plausible other than the obvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!
And for Osirion to call us nutty is like the dove calling the raven white! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement.
Are you saying that there is no evidence when the source claims such evidence? Nevermind the fact it is indeed posted on a Hebrew-centric site (as if Egyptsearch does not have its on centrism) but the quest is whether or not there was indeed Asiatics that were wiped out in the same manner as depicted on the Narmer palette.
"bvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!"
The above is nutty!
ALL were African? Really? Right next door to Palestine and yet its a pure African region with no admixture?
Nutty!
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"bvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!"
The above is nutty!
^^About as "nutty" as saying that *all* Levantines (including those of the Sinai) were Asiatic! Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
1) We are challenging your evidence. We again ask, can you show us proof of this fiery "final solution", this supposed "holocaust" perpetrated by the hegmons of Upper Egypt? We all know your supposedly "Semitic" north was taken over by the south, but most current scholars see a mix of things- from peaceful trade, to outright conquest, to slow absorption via alliances, etc. So again, we ask, can you show archaeological proof of this fiery "Holocaust" on the poor northern "Semites"? Proof, not a blurb by one writer in 1980. So far you have failed to provide such.
2) You claim that the "Afrocentrists" say Egypt was "completely isolated" from Asia. Really now... Who might these people be? Any established posters on ES? How about Asante? Diop? Keita? From whence this claim of "complete isolation"? You advanced this claim. We ask for proof. SO far you have failed to show any.
3) You imply and your Hebrew History site clearly implies, that advanced Semites supposedly introduced all the good things- the elaborations, and sophiscation that was to become Dynastic Egypt. OK, so let's take your source and lay it against mainstream scholarship, INCLUDING research by ISRAELI archaeologists as shown at the bottom:
Quote: "What is truly unique about this state is the integration of rule over an extensive geographic region, in contrast to other contemporaneous Near Easter polities in Nubia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant. Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of form from the Predynastic to the First Dynasty, This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of Lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that which originated in Upper Egypt. Hierarchical society with much social and economic differentiation, as symbolized in the Nagada II cemeteries of Upper Egypt, does not seem to have been present, then, in Lower Egypt, a fact which supports an Upper Egyptian origin for the unified state. Thus archaeological evidence cannot support earlier theories that the founders of Egyptian civilization were an invading Dynastic race from the east.."
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less cleat... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character."
Bard, Kathryn A. 1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.
There you have it. Everyone knows there was extensive trade contact with Mesopotamia in early Egypt, but that does not translate into your simplictic claim of "Semites" virtually building Egyptian early civilization.
As for said "Semites" no one denies there was movement of such people, if even to trade one would expect to see such movement. But scholarship shows no mass influx of such people, and their presence does not translate into your supposed 'Semitic civiizer" approach. Keep in mind that as far as cranial studies, most find that Upper and Lower Egyptians cluster much more closely with one another than anyone else. This would not be so, under your Hebrew History's pro-Semite claim. Keep in mind also that limb proportion studies group the peoples of the north with Africans rather than Europeans.
Quote: "..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 50-55
Also using mostly northern samples, head to head comparisons were run in 2008 against other peoples like Black Americans, White americans, Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans. The results- tropically adapted peoples like Black Amerians matched up closer with the ancient Egyptians than with the whites. Where does this leave your all-important "Semites?"
quote: "We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks. ..brachial indices are definitely more African... There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf, (Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-55
4) As for your precious 'Semites' from Palestine, the data at hand suggest that it was the Upper Egyptian hegemons that were the organizers of major trade to Palestine rather than the other way around, and that they were a major factor in the expansion of a more sophiscated urbanization there. And this is data by ISRAELI scholars not "American Afrocentrists."
quote:
"From Petrie onwards, it was regularly suggested that despite the evidence of Predynastic cultures, Egyptian civilization of the 1st Dynasty appeared suddenly and must therefore have been introduced by an invading foreign 'race'. Since the 1970s however, excavations at Abydos and Hierakonpolis have clearly demonstrated the indigenous, Upper Egyptian roots of early civilization in Egypt.
Contact between northern Egypt and Palestine was overland, as evidence in northern Sinai demonstrates.. Israeli archealogists suggest that this evidence represents a commercial network established and controlled by the Egyptians as early as EBA Ia, and that this network was a major factor in the rise of the urban settlements found later in Palestine EBA II. Naomi Porat's technological study of ceramics from EBA sites in southern Palestine clearly demonstrates that in EBA Ib strata many of the pottery vessels used for food preparation were probably manufactured by Egyptian potters using Egyptian technology but local Palestinian clays. In EBA Ib strata there are also many storage jars made from Nile silt and marl wares, which must have been imported from Egypt. Not only did the Egyptians establish camps and way stations in norhern Sinai, but the ceramic evidence also suggests that they established a highly organized network of settlements in southern Palestine where an Egyptian population was in residence."
Ian Shaw ed. (2003) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt By Ian Shaw. Oxford University Press, page 40-63 Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. We presented evidence or rather the lack of evidence of any Asiatic community present in the Delta let alone any "holocaust" or genocide against them, yet Osirion still clings to his claim!
quote:Originally posted by osirion: True, but Afro-Nuts try to claim complete isolation. It is unnecessary since European civilizations were not isolated from Africans and Asiatics either.
Strawman argument. Nobody said anything about isolation. Just because Egypt was in contact with Palestine does not mean there were any Palestinian populations present in Egypt.
quote:I simply claim that there were quite a few Semitic trading centers in Lower Egypt in pre-dynastic times. Not sure what precipitated the war against them but they were clearly destroyed and evidence shows absorption of their maternal lineage.
Again, trading centers yes but no 'Semitics' as in Asiatics! And there is no evidence of any attack or conflict let alone conflagration against these traders! Lastly, by maternal lineage I take it you mean U6. How many times do we have to tell you that U6 is AFRICAN in origin despite similarities to other U haplogroups in much the same way that M1 is African despite similarities to other M* derived haplogroups in Asia! U6 is predominant in Africa than it is outside of it so whatever minimal presence found in the Levant can only be due to influxes from Africa which corresponds to the presence of paternal E lineages in that area also! So please spare us silly conjecture of a community prehistoric 'Jewish' traders who were victims of a genocide where only the women survived! LOL The archaeology does not support it, the anthropological remains don't, and neither do the genetics!
quote:Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement.
Not according to all the scholarly data gathered on Maadi.
quote:Are you saying that there is no evidence when the source claims such evidence? Nevermind the fact it is indeed posted on a Hebrew-centric site (as if Egyptsearch does not have its on centrism) but the quest is whether or not there was indeed Asiatics that were wiped out in the same manner as depicted on the Narmer palette.
LOL Nevermind the fact that your so-called source is the ONLY one that makes such a claim while all others do not! Also Egyptsearch may be centric, but it is truthcentric-- all Afrocentrism you percieve comes from the simple FACT that Egypt is African! It's been shown to you already that the people of Maadi via studies of their own bodily remains were of African origin and NOT Asiatics, and again there is nothing objective in the Narmer Palette to show that Narmer's enemies were Asiatics themselves!
quote:"obvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!"
The above is nutty!
ALL were African? Really? Right next door to Palestine and yet its a pure African region with no admixture?
Nutty!
There's nothing "nutty" about about EVIDENCE or your case a lack thereof! Yes Egypt is right next door to the Levant which means it is always a possibility even a likely hood of peoples from the Levant. There is even evidence from genetics that a few of the J lineages in Egypt go back farther than the Arab invasion into prehistoric times, hence only a few and not enough to mark any community of Asiatics as all the early Delta remains including Maadi show African characteristics. On the contrary we have evidence of the opposite-- substantial E lineages in the Levant back up by contemporary skeletal remains with African features (Natufians)!
It's not a matter of centrism or bias but again of EVIDENCE and therefore REALITY. You call others "nutty" when it is YOU who hypothesizes not only a prehistoric community of Asiatics in the Delta but a genocide against them!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"bvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!"
The above is nutty!
^^About as "nutty" as saying that *all* Levantines (including those of the Sinai) were Asiatic!
Hey I have learned something from this site: strawman.
Yes I get to use it.
Cool.
Why would I think Western Asiatics are 100% Asian? Not with the significant amount of African/Nubian admixture. They also speak what there is evidence for, a African language. So likely they are a significant mixture between Indo-European and East African.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
"There is even evidence from genetics that a few of the J lineages in Egypt go back farther than the Arab invasion into prehistoric times"
Are you schizophrenic or something? First you say its pure Black African and now you admit to Asiatic genes in North Africa back to the upper Holocene?
Everyone above has only repeated what I said and thrown in a few strawmens. Not one of you has refuted a single thing.
I claim trading centers similar to the ones during pre-Aksumite era when the Sabeans made small trading colonies in Northern Ethiopia. Asiatic people trading culture and technology in the Delta with Africans (also why you find mostly African remains because the predominant people of the Delta were Africans no different than modern day Nubians and containing the diversity we see in people such as the Tuareg, Oromos and other Nilotic Africans). These Asiatics also gained from this trade.
Considering that early excavations have shown that Egyptian masonry is of Upper Egyptian/Nubian source, I am certainly not claiming that the techno-complex of Egypt was Asiatic. There were some styles that were Asiatic but the type of masonry work we see is really more Nubian than Asiatic.
As far as the Narmer Palette is concerned. I believe it depicts people like are clearly differentiated from each other.
Clearly an exagerated Afro styled African -vs- a hooked nose Asiatic type similar to the ones we see on chest of King Tut:
I personally think this war between NE Africa and the Asiatics has been going on since the Holocene. A rivalry of sorts between Black Africans and their neighbors to the East of them.
War of the Titans since well into pre-Dynastic times.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You havent provided any evidence to support your claims. Let's recap.
1) You claimed that mysterious Afrocentrists say Egypt is "completely isolated" from Palestine etc. Status- no evidence to back it up.
2) You claimed a fiery holocaust, a "final solution" consumed Maadi. Status- no evidence to back it up.
3) You claimed a large number of Semitic trading centers. Status- no evidence to back it up.
4) Your Hebrew History claimed massive Asiatic influence in civilizing the natives. There was trade and interchange, but hardly any massive civilizing effect. Status- no evidence to back it up.
On the traders, Sure there could have been traders, and other miscellaneous small scale movement or settlement, but the question is how significant are they as far as population? Archaeological evidence shows no major influx.
Where is the proof of the "quite a few Semitic trading centers"? It should be noted that Upper Egyptians also ran a fair amount of trade themselves with the north, so don't try to equate "trade" with "Semitic".. Hmmm... now that sounds familar... Trade was a 2 way street.
The early southern rulers also dominated parts of Palestine in view of trade according to some writers:
Quotes: WIlkinson 1999 (early Dynastic Egypt) shows "substantial Egyptian activity in southern Palestine during the late Predynastic to early Dynastic transition, including establishment of military bases and more forceful domination of trade terms. (Wilkinson 1999, p.24).
and within Egypt, Memphis appeared ideally situated to the purposes of the southerners as they centralized power and brought more advanced culture and technology to the north. "The greater Memphite area must have seen the first changes to this indigenous tradition caused by the northward expansion of the more advanced technologies from Upper Egypt.. (Wilkinson 1999, p.31)
So the notion of "Semites" bringing civilization to the natives as claimed in the 'Hebrew History 'website is dubious. That is just a "Semitic" version of the old "Aryan model". Both are defunct.
On top of that the supposed "Asiatic" civilizers" did not seem to have shaped the development of Egyptian Dynastic civilization much at all. Trade as we have seen, was firmly in the hands of Egyptians not supposed 'Semites" and as to the claimed "Asiatic" influence:
"What is truly unique about this state is the integration of rule over an extensive geographic region, in contrast to other contemporaneous Near Easter polities in Nubia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant. Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of form from the Predynastic to the First Dynasty. This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of Lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that which originated in Upper Egypt.."
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less cleat... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character."
Bard, Kathryn A. 1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
In fact when did I say anything you claimed I said above. Aryan Model? Lol? I claim Hebrew trading colonies and you speark of Aryans? I must agree that I do think that Aryans were indeed Hebrew but that is not the point. Hebrew people became subjects of the Egyptians rather than the other way around as claimed by White Nationalists.
I claim a Saharan origin of Egypt's culture not Asiatic. However, technological trade is still quite supported and again the masonry work of Egypt can be attribtued to Nubian development not Asiatic.
Personally I think there was a synthesis of Asiatic and African culture with the latter being dominant that led to Egypt's dynastic period. So if there was a Dynastic Race it was African. But this doesn't mean that the Africans did not have an Asiatic conquered class in their midst and no one yet has provided any review of my post that corrects supposed errors other than simply arguing against it in a philosophical way.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less cleat... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character."
Thanks for this post it helps strengthen my position. Appreciate it.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Zarahan,the^was what I was talking about I was just now thumming thru an old copy of Egypt revisited to provide a similar response,but you got to it first.The contents of an A-group royal tomb at Qustul includes large amounts of fine painted pottery,with one large bowl decorated with rows of palace facades;a Syro-palastinian early Bronze 1 jug and egyptian pottery.Now you have to remember that Ta-Seti was no mere chieftancy but a state that conducted warfare or trade with whomever they like or dont like,quote: The last group came from the Lavant and was made in the tradition of Syro-Palestinian vessels dating to the early Bronze 1 period(before ca 3200/3150 B.C.). Almost all of these were found in a single early cemetary L tomb and represent a type that has never been found in Egypt-although close parallels have been found on the Asiatic cost.
Now for the warfare part.The bow hovers over a shortened rectangle which in this period represents land.The obvious interpretation is that the man is saluting the name for Nubia-Ta-Seti,or"Land of the Bow"-as a kingship and territoral state. Three objects from cemetary L relate even more directly to the history of the kingdom of Ta-Seti.The first is a large bowl from tomb L23 which has an elaborate painting of a processional scene leading to a shrine made of poles.Three vultures appear, two of them holding serpents in their talons and attacking them with their beaks,the specific occurrence of this motif on the Qustul bowl allows us to follow a chronological progression in the development of this motif on two other important objects.One of these also a large bowl the other an Egyptian storage jar.It shows a vertical pole with an oval object on it being attacked by an elongated vulture like bird.The back and neck of the bird is streched in an exaggerated arc,like that made by tails.The oval under attack contains two diagonal lines,clearly the sign for Nekhen or Heirakonpolis,the late prehistoric site that has yielded so much evidence for the rise of the Egyptian pharaohs.The third piece of evidence ,from cemetary L19,painted on the side are static heraldic groups,consisting of two giraffes facing a tree with aleast one animal above and behind them.The most striking feature of this decoration is crown of the palm tree between the giraffes which has been supplanted by an animal group including the now familiar vulture.Here the bird tears not at a serpent or a symbol but at a fallen man,the fallen man is labeled below his knee with the familiar oval land sign-without the two diagonal marks,instead a plant extends at an odd angle from the left end of the torso which can no longer be seen,the plant has three opposed pair of short leaves and a broad stalk that curves sharply to a point an early form of the symbol for Upper Egypt.The plant with the land oval can only be read one way, the Fallen enemy is labeled Ta-Shemau or upper Egypt.On the other bowl the enemy is fallen on his back rather than forward.The long flat land sign extends from his knee and thevertical sign appears to make aquestion mark above this,in all probablity,is the label Ta-Tjemeh or Libya. All of these complex parts comprise the great legacy of the cemetary at Qustul-the eloquent remains of a remarkable civilization that rose out of both Egyptian and Sudanese heritages and had contacts as far away as Libya and west Asia.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Are you schizophrenic or something? First you say its pure Black African and now you admit to Asiatic genes in North Africa back to the upper Holocene?
First of all I never argued any 'purity' so much as no substantial presence of Asiatics in that we have NO archaeological or anthropological remains of such.
Second, the few J lineages present in the Delta date to Neolithic expansions-- the same that led to Greece. Obviously Greece received alot more of them than Egypt.
quote:Everyone above has only repeated what I said and thrown in a few strawmens. Not one of you has refuted a single thing.
LOL I don't recall anyone in here repeating any hypothesis of Asiatic communities in the predynastic Delta who were victims of a pre-Jewish Holocaust!
quote:I claim trading centers similar to the ones during pre-Aksumite era when the Sabeans made small trading colonies in Northern Ethiopia. Asiatic people trading culture and technology in the Delta with Africans (also why you find mostly African remains because the predominant people of the Delta were Africans no different than modern day Nubians and containing the diversity we see in people such as the Tuareg, Oromos and other Nilotic Africans). These Asiatics also gained from this trade.
But whatever trading centers in Maadi were African and NOT Asiatic. And there was no violent genocide against them.
quote:Considering that early excavations have shown that Egyptian masonry is of Upper Egyptian/Nubian source, I am certainly not claiming that the techno-complex of Egypt was Asiatic. There were some styles that were Asiatic but the type of masonry work we see is really more Nubian than Asiatic.
Again, masonry and metallurgy was indigenous to Egypt and the rest of Africa. The main thing the Egyptians traded with Asiatics are simple tools of pottery, wood, and even foods like wheat.
quote:As far as the Narmer Palette is concerned. I believe it depicts people that are clearly differentiated from each other.
And again YOU believe. It is not a matter of belief but what is. There is nothing to suggest that the enemies defeated were Asiatics!
quote:Clearly an exagerated Afro styled African -vs- a hooked nose Asiatic type similar to the ones we see on chest of King Tut:
There are no "hook-nosed" figures in the Narmer Palette unless you count enemy whose nose is literally being hooked by a hawk! They are not wearing Asiatic garb but African and nothing to suggest they came from anywhere else but the Delta.
quote:I personally think this war between NE Africa and the Asiatics has been going on since the Holocene. A rivalry of sorts between Black Africans and their neighbors to the East of them.
Again, what you personally think is irrelevent to what is known.
quote:War of the Titans since well into pre-Dynastic times.
LOL That's some imagination you got there. I mean even your ancient Hebrew texts speak of no such thing. Likely because there never was one!
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 50-55
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are no "hook-nosed" figures in the Narmer Palette unless you count enemy whose nose is literally being hooked by a hawk! "
Quite so and very symbolic of the hook nosed Asiatics lying dead on the battle fields.
However, it is the hair texture of the people in Lower Egypt that differentiates them from the Upper Egyptians. The Lower Egyptians have more coarse straight hair where as the Upper Egyptians have what is clearly Afro fizzy hair. And again if you look closely the Lower Egyptians have hooked pointy noses very much different from the boulbous nose of Narmer himself.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ha! Its not even scholarship its my opinion.
This is Scholarship:
Hoffman, Ibid., 214
The people of Ma'adi were among the communities of Asiatic peoples who were still productively active in the north at the time it was invaded and their communities destroyed. The Asiatics suffered a cruel thanks for the technology and culture they had introduced. "Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement. If so, then perhaps this was the "final solution' arranged for the heterogenous society of Ma'adi by the victorious kings of the First Dynasty."11
Now why don't you guys look at the footnote and find out what evidence support the above scholarship and point out any errors.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Well, your "opinion" is baseless and thus, should be disregarded.
The one who should be double checking citations is you so that you may proceed to defend your bankrupt argument.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Does it follow that simply because there isn't a substantial amount of skeletal remains supporting a trading center in Lower Egypt, that we can conclude that Asiatics had not penetrated into Lower Egypt and setup trading centers and farm lands? How about we look at other East African societies. Pre-Aksumite remains also appear to be quite African even though we know there were Sabean trading colonies in Ethiopia that existed before the rise of the Aksumite society. Simply to cite skeletal remains will not suffice considering the amount of physical evidence supporting ties with Libya and West Asia.
Though Aksum is clearly an African civilization with its own independent religious customs and script, we still must recognize Asiatic presence before this civilization took root. The same is true in Egypt where we clearly find evidence of contact and trade with Asiatic people. There is certainly enough evidence both in genetic research and physical evidence to support a small trading center and likely farmers. Intermarriage would natural have taken place as well. Such off spring could expand rapidly in a fertile Delta.
My opinion is far from baseless. The gene flow across the Red Sea and the Sinai peninsula is now well established on multiple fronts. African civilizations for sure but not isolated from Asiatic developments or gene flow. It would not take much but a few group of people that happened to be traders and willing to sell technical information. Egypt, like Greece, is not located at the center of non-Western Asiatic continents. Europe's greatest civilization was on the edge of Europe's frontiers. The same is true with Egypt, it is not at the center of Africa but at its front door.
It is strange, since, AfroNuts claim Greece was a partially African and Asiatic society. So Europe's greatest civilization was not 100% European but Africa's greatest must be 100% African. Really? I think the evidence is clearly against that.
----
In summary: We know that the Aksumites were East African people and yet without a doubt we know that Sabeans were Asiatic and yet living in Ethiopia before the rise of the Aksumite civilization. However, there is no skeletal evidence supporting Sabean existence in Ethiopia. We do know that at some point their trading colonies were overrun. In fact, not only were their trading colonies over run in Ethiopia but the Aksumites took it further and crossed the Red Sea and conquered parts of Yemen.
This is the story of East Africa.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed Osirion is quite admitting that he is giving nothing more than his opinion no matter how twisted, which is why he equates the scene of the totemic hawk sticking a hook like object in a man's nose to "hook" shape noses and fantasizes dead enemies with such noses.
Osirion, give it up!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
We need evidence of lower Egyptians being mixed with Asiatics. We know for sure that Upper Egypt was where the population in Egypt was mostly populated. I think there is something to your rants about Asiatics being present, but they were not there in numbers that would make there presence alter how Lower Egypt was populated.
We need more evidence.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed Osirion is quite admitting that he is giving nothing more than his opinion no matter how twisted, which is why he equates the scene of the totemic hawk sticking a hook like object in a man's nose to "hook" shape noses and fantasizes dead enemies with such noses.
Osirion, give it up!
Yes I admit that it is my opinion that the depictions of the Lower Egyptians on the Narmer palette is that of Asiatic people and very similar to the depiction of Asiatic people in Egyptian art throughout much of the Pharoanic era. If you compare the Asiatics on the Tut Chest picture I posted above with that of the Lower Egyptians on the Narmer Palette we see a characterization of Asiatics that is common in Egypt: Long hair, facial hair and overtly point hooked noses. These individuals are differentiated from Narmer and his followers.
I think the natural reaction to someone claiming Asiatic influence in Africa is one of repugnation since it is usually based on racist idealogies that Africans could not have alone produced such civilizations. I reject this premise entirely and again point out that I believe Egypt has a Saharan origin. Asiatic adopted African culture and tradition in their dealings with East African cultures. However, Africa has benefited from a flow of some techniques that were introduced from Western Asia: camels, horse pulled Charriots, etc.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yea, well, you've still yet to produce evidence or an argument that contradicts the consensus of archaeology/anthropology as exemplified by zaharan's posts, so your theory can be seen so far as merely speculative, which isn't worth very much here.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
And where exactly on the palette is this interpretation of yours "clear"??! As has been remarked by most scholars, the features of the supposed northerners are not much different from the alleged southerners..![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic