quote:Originally posted by melchior7: I do think some of the ones in your bottom photo look like ancient Egyptians.
All of the people in that image were Egyptians and match perfectly with images Egyptians left behind of themselves.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Do you think the folks in ancient Memphis would have looked Eurasian?
I would have to see if any studies have meen made on Memphite Egyptians and have to see the images left from their tombs, but from what I have seen so far and read so far NO, Some folks were Eurasian looking Some looked like Southern Sudanese Most looked like Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese.
Further Memphis was founded by and ruled by majority Southern Egyptian Royals.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
It means that these two populations would have resembled each other, yes. Even though we can't know exactly what they looked like, we know the populations they had morphological affinities with
We can't know exactly what they looked like..RIIIIGHT!
Egyptians
Nubians
You are being selective here..
More depictions of Egyptians..
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Its obvious what the Dominant Phenotype was and who they resemble but you seem rather stuck on passing a minority off as a representation of Egypt..
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Do you think the folks in ancient Memphis would have looked Eurasian?
As a matter of fact, ancient Lower Egyptian skeletons have been compared with those of the ancient southern Levant, the closest Eurasian region to Egypt, and the Lower Egyptians still tended more towards Africans and were distinct from the Levantines. So even if ancient Lower Egyptians were slightly lighter-skinned than their Upper Egyptian counterparts, any Eurasian admixture in them would have been much more minor than you want.
Source: Smith, P. "The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE." In Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium BCE. Edited by E. C.M van den Brink and T. E. Levy., 118-28. Leicester, UK: Leicester Univ Press, 2002.
Posts: 7202 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
High noses? You are clearly delusional. Out of your list only the statue of Hemiunu bears a high nose.
What do you say about kafre then?
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
How do you figure that two populations have to be distant from each other to develop different languages? What principle is that statement based on?
Lol. Common sense. I can't believe you can't grasp that. It's not just different languages, But UNRELATED langauges. Do you know anything about language families? The spread of a language is often associated with the spread of a particular haplogroup btw. R for Indo-Europeans languages, J for semitic etc.
Not only that, but you totally ignore the evidence of common origins in the south via linguistic evidence.
The evidence would imply that the different groups eventually came to live in proximity of each other and borrowed certian linguistic terms and cultural ideas. Borrowings and cultural exchanges have occured between Indo-European and semitic, Uralic and Indo-European etc But this doesn't tell us about ultimate origins. The Urheimat for Afroasiatic is believed to be the Horn of Africa, though some dispute that. Niger Congo languages,the Nuba mountains, Nilo-Saharan languages,somewhere in the Eastern Sahara.
Anybody can tell you that haplogroup T would have been introduced during the Neolithic/ Whoever says it was introduced 20,000 years ago is on crack seeing as how the ancestors to the ancient Egyptians were still in sub-Saharan Africa.
And therein lies your problem. You believe that the Egyptians stem from ONE group of people, the Badarians from the south. Whereas I believe they are a fusiopn of differnt peoples.
As far as haplogroup T. It does seem younger than 20,000 years but just before the Neolithic...
"Since haplogroup T is not associated with the R1, G and J lineages that entered Africa from Eurasia relatively recently, Luis et al. (2004) suggest that the presence of the clade on the continent may, like R1* representatives, point to an older introduction from Asia. The Levant rather than Southern Arabia appears to have been the main route of entry, as the Egyptian and Turkish haplotypes are considerably older in age (13,700 ybp and 9,000 ybp, respectively) than those found in Oman (only 1,600 ybp). According to the authors, the spotty modern distribution pattern of haplogroup T within Africa may therefore represent the traces of a more widespread early local presence of the clade. Later expansions of populations carrying the E1b1b, E1b1a, G and J NRY lineages may have overwhelmed the T clade-bearers in certain localities."
J. R. Luis et al.: The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations (Errata), American Journal of Human Genetics
If you think the above people look Middle Eastern you just aren't familiar with African phenotypes
Yeah I know that ploy. Africans are DIVERSE. That allows you to claim just about anyone. I have argued with a few who claimed that light eyed, fair complected Berbers were just an example of African diversity and have no relation with any non african peoples...
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
There are no high projecting noses on the statues of khefren and Khasekhem.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a matter of fact, ancient Lower Egyptian skeletons have been compared with those of the ancient southern Levant, the closest Eurasian region to Egypt, and the Lower Egyptians still tended more towards Africans and were distinct from the Levantines. So even if ancient Lower Egyptians were slightly lighter-skinned than their Upper Egyptian counterparts, any Eurasian admixture in them would have been much more minor than you want.
Yeah but you have to ask yourself an honest question. How do people living in a hot climate with origins from Sub Sharan Africa end up with light skin?? How exactly does that jibe with tropical adaptation?
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are no high projecting noses on the statues of khefren and Khasekhem.
Yeah Khefren's nose looks perfectly flat.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its obvious what the Dominant Phenotype was and who they resemble but you seem rather stuck on passing a minority off as a representation of Egypt..
The darker types certianly do exist, as to who is the majority or minority, I will need to examine that further.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You must believe Khasekhem has a flat nose seeing as you only made a reference to Khafra in your post ,hence i assume you retract on your point made about Khasekhem bearing a high projecting nose, yes? As for khafra, his features have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. You can find many threads pertaining to the king in the archives.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Lol. Common sense. I can't believe you can't grasp that. It's not just different languages, But UNRELATED langauges. Do you know anything about language families? The spread of a language is often associated with the spread of a particular haplogroup btw. R for Indo-Europeans languages, J for semitic etc.
I can't believe you can't grasp that you have no idea what you are talking about. Who says they're unrelated exactly, and can you not properly comprehend what the authors are saying? The first speakers of the Egyptians language were most likely located in the Sudan or Sahara and this is based on the fact of the shared vocabulary. The evidence all in all is not indicative of just borrowing certain linguistic terms. You are just in denial. As a matter of fact, if you had bothered to read the full context of the citation I presented, as well as the article and the evidence provided therein, you would realize that what you are saying has no basis in fact and is simply wishful thinking on your part. IF the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language showed affinities to contemporary Saharan/Sudanese and they originated to the south, this in no way supports your initial suggestion which you assumed was supported by linguistics. Just so you know, the Y chromosome marker B-M60 also suggests a significant presence amongst earlier Egyptians.
Even more fanciful thinking is how you are assuming that the Egyptians and Nubians were different. You seem to think that linguistic evidence supports this suggestion, and yet, it doesn't. At all. You choose to ignore the biological data as well which shows the Egyptians and Nubians to cluster indicating a biological relationship which we also know because of gene flow since ancient times and common origins. Face it, you don't have a leg to stand on and you are a product of your own bias and interpretation of artwork, not scientific data. Everything you said is unsubstantiated (edited spelling mistake.)
You're done here.
BTW, just so you know your article is saying that the hg T in Egypt is pre-Neolithic. To the contrary, it is saying that it would have been introduced at 9,000 years ago at around 7-6,000 B.C. consistent with Near Eastern domesticates being introduced with no major presence of Near Easterners
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe you can't grasp that you have no idea what you are talking about. Who says they're unrelated exactly, and can you not properly comprehend what the authors are saying? The first speakers of the Egyptians language were most likely located in the Sudan or Sahara and this is based on the fact of the shared vocabulary. The evidence all in all is not indicative of just borrowing certain linguistic terms. You are just in denial. As a matter of fact, if you had bothered to read the full context of the citation I presented, as well as the article and the evidence provided therein, you would realize that what you are saying has no basis in fact and is simply wishful thinking on your part. IF the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language showed affinities to contemporary Saharan/Sudanese and they originated to the south, this in no way supports your initial suggestion which you assumed was supported by linguistics. Just so you know, the Y chromosome marker B-M60 also suggests a significant presence amongst earlier Egyptians.
You still don't understand. Oh well..
Even more fanciful thinking is how you are assuming that the Egyptians and Nubians were different. You seem to think that linguistic evidence supports this suggestion, and yet, it doesn't. At all. You choose to ignore the biological data as well which shows the Egyptians and Nubians to cluster indicating a biological relationship which we also know because of gene flow since ancient times and common origins. Face it, you don't have a leg to stand on and you are a product of your own bias and interpretation of artwork, not scientific data. Everything you said is basically conjuncture. Nah..you waste my time.."Conjunture"??
BTW, just so you know your article is saying that the hg T in Egypt is pre-Neolithic. To the contrary, it is saying that it would have been introduced at 9,000 years ago at around 7-6,000 B.C. consistent with Near Eastern domesticates being introduced with no major presence of Near Easterners
BTW reread your quote. It is highly refelctive of your manner of thinking, INCOHERENT!
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Looks like you to understand how bad your thinking is. So answer the question:
If the linguistic evidence supports a relationship between Egyptians and Sudanese. So via linguistics, they ARE related which totally refutes your notion earlier, and suggests an origin for the ancient Egyptians further south consistent with other fields of research.
You think something is true and yet you cannot even provide any evidence to reinforce it
BTW, your reply is reflective of a cop out. Dwelling on my spelling mistakes (FYI, I meant to say that your article ISN'T saying hg T in Egypt is pre-Neolithic). You are making unsubstantiated statements that you fail to provide evidence to, and when presented with evidence to the contrary you backtrack. Your conclusions are guesses
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Aryans (Indo-Europeans) were fair haired and white. Throughout the Rig-Veda and other ancient Indians texts the Aryans are described as blondes and pale skinned, sharply contrasted to the 'black' dasyu (dravidian indians).
The claim Aryans are not a race, and secondly were not blonde is a post-ww2 invention that only was invented because of political correctness. You can blame Hitler for what led to the demonization of blonde haired white people.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the end of the matter, all lines of evidence supports that the ancient Egyptians have origins to the south and relationship with Saharans/Sudanese. If you are of the mindset that the ancient Saharans/Sudanese were Middle Eastern looking, well, that's just your problem.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
If the linguistic evidence supports a relationship between Egyptians and Sudanese. So via linguistics, they ARE related which totally refutes your notion earlier, and suggests an origin for the ancient Egyptians further south consistent with other fields of research.
No, the implication via lingustics is not that they are related. It's like saying that Melungeons who lived in North carolina have picked up some Cherokee loan words and tradtions. From this we can surmise that the Melungeons at one time lived in close proximity to the Cherokee and that there was significant interaction between the two peoples. These is what your source is implying. But the Egyptian language and Nubian are not related.
It seems likely that the Badarians orginated from somewhere in Afro-Asiatic Somalia and worked their way up the Nile where they encountered Nilo Saharan speaking peoples. There was an interchange of ideas and some linguistic terms which helped spark Nubian culture but did not alter their language. Presumably more Nilo Saharans moved East into Sudan while the Badarians pushed further North. And without checking I'll bet this limb porportion/ craniometric similarity with Nubians extends to Somalians and Horn Africans too.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the end of the matter, all lines of evidence supports that the ancient Egyptians have origins to the south
I agree. But where disagree is that I beleive that the Badarians who mgrated North into Egypt encountered a people already living there, and mixed with them. And we know there was a separate culture in the delta in Predynastic times. Remeber Menes esentially unified two nations.
If you are of the mindset that the ancient Saharans/Sudanese were Middle Eastern looking, well, that's just your problem.
No but apparently some folks living in Northern Egypt likely were prior to the Badarians. I honestly believe that light complexions and sharp features of some of the Egyptians entails some kind of migration from West Asia. And if you want to claim that some of these so called "mediterranean" traits are present in Beja and Horn Africans too, with regard to rather diverse genetic make up, there is a case to be made that they inherit some West Asian influence as well.
Bottom line, there has always been a lot of diversity in East Africa due to its proximity to the Arabian peninsula and West Asia.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
I agree. But where disagree is that I beleive that the Badarians who mgrated North into Egypt encountered a people already living there, and mixed with them. And we know there was a separate culture in the delta in Predynastic times. Remeber Menes esentially unified two nations. [/QB]
And the Delta has barely been excavated and has thousands of unexplored sites.
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: No, the implication via lingustics is not that they are related
I just want to clear up this one last thing. Your statement was that the linguistic data suggests a difference in origins amongst the Egyptians and "Nubians". However, what the data I am showing you is implicating is that the earliest Egyptian speakers were located in the Sudan/Sahara which I maintain is consistent with a close relationship they have been known to have with Sudanese by other fields of research.
As for your other statements, I suggest you do some more research, which I will BTW no longer do for you.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic