posted
Some have taken Keita's use of the term "coastal northern pattern" to imply a discrete form or set of phenotypes that is perhaps exclusive of the indigenous tropical African range of phenotypes. Is this what the “coastal northern pattern” invokes? To be sure, you might want to examine this piece from Keita…
“The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian- Maghreb modal pattern. It is clear however from the unknown analyses that the Abydene centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series.
Badari crania analyzed in this fashion revealed few or none which classified into the northern-Egyptian groups (Keita, 1990).
This **northern modal pattern**, which can be **called coastal northern African**, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes.
As noted earlier, Howells’ work (1973) also demonstrates this, and Howells notes the difference with the Nakada predynastic group. The Abydos crania as a series do have continuity with the southern pattern, but change occurs.
The notable increase in northern pattern crania in the south, from Badari times, might have a selection explanation, but the essentially bimodal nature of the presence of the contrasting trends suggests the presence of “real” northerners. Conditions in southern Upper Egypt between Badari and First Dynasty periods would not seem to have favored genetic drift; exogamy is postulated during Nakada times (Hassan, 1981, and this would tend to oppose the effects of drift, especially when coupled with an increasing population.. The effects of admixture and or heterosis on classification are unknown. (North-south hybrids may classify as northerners.)” - Keita
---- Note: So how is this increase in the “northern pattern” in the south explained? Reading further, and take note of “**”…
“Archaeology and history seem to provide the most parsimonious explanation for the variation in the royal tombs at Abydos. Tomb design suggests the presence of northerners in the south in late Nakada times (Hoffman, 1988) when the unification probably took place. Delta names are attached to some of the tombs at Abydos (Gardiner, 1961; Yurco, 1990, personal communication), thus perhaps supporting Petrie’s (1939) and Gardiner’s **contention that north-south marriages were undertaken to legitimize the hegemony of the south.** The courtiers of northern elites would have accompanied them. Given all of the above, it is probably not possible to view the Abydos royal tomb sample as representative of the general southern Upper Egyptian population of the time.
Southern elites and or their descendants eventually came to be buried in the north (Hoffman, 1988). Hence early Second Dynasty kings and Djoser (Dynasty 111) (Hayes, 1953) and his descendants are not buried in Abydos. Petrie (1939) states that the Third Dynasty, buried in the north, was of Sudanese origin, but southern Egypt is equally likely. This perhaps explains Harris and Weeks’ (1973) suggested findings of southern morphologies in some Old Kingdom Giza remains, also verified in portraiture (Drake, 1987).
Further study would be required to ascertain trends in the general population of both regions. - Keita
------ Note: With regards to the general population, it brings to mind Sonia Zakrzewski’s interesting piece, which investigated amongst other factors, the effects of increasing complexity of social organization and social hierarchy on growth patterns in stature of specimens encompassing social elites and the general populace, ranging from pre-dynastic periods to the dynastic periods spanning the Early dynastic to the Middle Kingdom, with specimens extracted largely from Middle to Upper Egypt.
Reading on..
“The strong Sudanese affinity noted in the unknown analyses may reflect the Nubian interactions with upper Egypt in predynastic times prior to Egyptian unification (Williams, 1980,1986). Ta Seti, the A-Group state based in Qustul (Fig. l), perhaps the earliest known kingdom in the Nile Valley (Williams, 1986), apparently conquered portions of upper Egypt. A-Group type royal tombs have been found in Upper Egypt (Williams, 1986). Later, Kmg Aha (Dynasty I) conquered Ta Seti, incorporating its territory and people into Egypt. Perhaps royal marriages and conquest further homogenized these groups. Ta Seti became the most southern nome of Egypt. On the other hand, early southern “Egyptian” metric phenotypes (Badari, Nakada I) overlap those of Kush/Nubia.
The “European” metrics of some of the crania clearly emphasize the contrasts found in the tombs. This may denote the range of variation encompassed by the coastal northern pattern, given its intermediate position, or reflect the presence of middle easterners. There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times.
Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less “native” are not supported by archeology. In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data.” - Keita.
---- So what have we learned?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you think, according to your assessment of Keita's work, that dynastic northern egyptians were black mixed with Asiatic? I seem to think so to, I think the Ramesside family is a perfect example of this. But do you think northern europeans would be an appropriate cranial group to compare with egyptians, due to the wide geographical distance between the two regions? And who said Middle Easterners (who are racially, Caucausian) have crania exactly like europeans? Get back to me.
posted
It is an issue of generalizations. While they can talk about "intermediate" centroid values between Southern and European, they dont really say what it means in terms of phenotype, especially skin color. Therefore, without measurements of MODERN populations in ALL parts of Africa to contrast and show if MODERN coastal populations have SIMILAR types of "intermediate" centroid values, it is HARD to really make any definitive conclusions. At least, that is without the WHOLE paper. I am against making OVERSIMPLIFIED statements that dont really CLARIFY anything. How do the ancient samples correspond to modern measurements? What is the phenotypical relationship between cranial measurements and facial features in MODERN people from similar locations? What does THAT tell us? Obviously, without the same amount of measurements on MODERN populations and the added dimension of LIVING people with phenotypes that can be observed, it is hard to say FOR SURE anything about the general phenotypes of the Egyptian or other African populations 5,000 years ago. Another thing that is odd is that it doesnt seem to take into account the cranial measurements of population IN the Sahara to the WEST of Egypt, where MANY researchers say the populations came from that SETTLED on the Nile, giving rise to Dynastic Egypt. What is the average of those centroid values and how do those moeasurements plot relative to other Africans and Europeans?
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: And who said Middle Easterners (who are racially, Caucausian) have crania exactly like europeans? Get back to me.
Who said anything about 'middle easterners' being 'racially' caucasian, and what exactly would that mean, other than wrote repetititon of nonsense?
Keita didn't say this, so how is it relevant to his writings?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After looking at the WHOLE paper, I got a better understanding of the CONTEXT in which to interperet this excerpt. Many times it is noted that those "intermediate" and "coastal" values need more study because they also contain a RANGE of values consistent with African diversity along with some that represent European values.
So you think, according to your assessment of Keita's work, that dynastic northern egyptians were black mixed with Asiatic? I seem to think so to, I think the Ramesside family is a perfect example of this. But do you think northern europeans would be an appropriate cranial group to compare with egyptians, due to the wide geographical distance between the two regions? And who said Middle Easterners (who are racially, Caucausian) have crania exactly like europeans?
When looking at craniometry, one has to understand that we are simply dealing with morphology [without the soft parts attached, off course], nothing else. As such, assessments are based on frequency of the discriminants under consideration. Cranial patterns common in the Levant, are more "generalized", in the sense that the contrasting morphological discriminants here, when compared with patterns in northern Eurasia, are relatively small. In this regard, the "generalized" pattern or trend approaching such, are observed in East African tropics, like in the African Horn, and Sahelian-West African regions. Just to give you an example; take prognathism, as a discriminant via certain angular cranial measurements. Such while not absent in northern Eurasian crania, is more frequent in various sub-Saharan crania. Decreasing tendencies of "stereotyped" traits [see: "Forest Negro"] of sub-Saharan Africans, is what prompts folks like Brace to say things like this:
"the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component."
"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa."
With that said, it would appear that patterns relatively less contrasting with those predominant in the Levant and northern Eurasia, though not exclusively, were found in the coastal African regions. Again, without skin attached, patterns predominant in southwest Asia and northern Eurasia, show relatively less contrasting trends. But the coastal northern [African] pattern is nothing homogenous, as Keita notes. It is 'intermediate', precisely because both trends that are predominant in tropical Africa and those predominant in northern Eurasia are notable in the northern African collections. The ancient Upper Egyptian crania, for instance, as Keita demonstrates, despite changes observed with time, continue to show stronger affinities with tropical African patterns, which are less "generalized" when compared to northern Eurasian patterns. Hence, to get a better assessment of cranial data, one has to compliment it with findings in molecular genetics, archeology and perhaps linguistics. But before I directly address your question, I'd like to know what you understand by "coastal northern pattern", after taking into consideration, what I just said!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
When looking at craniometry, one has to understand that we are simply dealing with morphology [without the soft parts attached, of course], nothing else. As such, assessments are based on frequency of the discriminants under consideration...
...With that said, it would appear that patterns relatively less contrasting with those predominant in the Levant and northern Eurasia, though not exclusively, were found in the coastal African regions...
...But the coastal northern [African] pattern is nothing homogenous, as Keita notes. It is 'intermediate', precisely because both trends that are predominant in tropical Africa and those predominant in northern Eurasia are notable in the northern African collections...
...to get a better assessment of cranial data, one has to compliment it with findings in molecular genetics, archeology and perhaps linguistics.
The notable increase in northern pattern crania in the south, from Badari times, might have a selection explanation, but the essentially bimodal nature of the presence of the contrasting trends suggests the presence of “real” northerners. Conditions in southern Upper Egypt between Badari and First Dynasty periods would not seem to have favored genetic drift; exogamy is postulated during Nakada times (Hassan, 1981, and this would tend to oppose the effects of drift, especially when coupled with an increasing population...
The **effects of admixture** and or heterosis on classification are **unknown**. (North-south hyrids may classify as northerners.)” - Keita
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is some people don't understand what the studies really say, and only pick and select certain words which fit their fancy or dogma.
Keita - This northern modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes.
Intermediate centroid values does NOT necessarily mean "mixed". As it has been discussed in this forum ad-infinitum, indigenous Africans vary in features which is why certain peoples in East as well as West and even Central Africa have at one time been classified as "caucasoids" or having "caucasoid admixture".
Note that the centroid values of northern Egyptians approximates to Northern Europeans. Can anyone remember Evil-Euro's nutty rantings that because of cranial studies, Somalis are closer to Danes than other Africans?! LOL
The “European” metrics of some of the crania clearly emphasize the contrasts found in the tombs. This may denote the range of variation encompassed by the coastal northern pattern, given its intermediate position, or reflect the presence of middle easterners. There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times.
Unfortunately, some people just don't (won't) get it...
Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less “native” are not supported by archeology. In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data. - Keita.
..no matter how many findings you throw in their faces.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since, Obelisk_18 apparently saw it fit not to give a feedback, I'll go ahead and answer the following in a more direct manner anyway:
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
So you think, according to your assessment of Keita's work, that dynastic northern egyptians were black mixed with Asiatic? I seem to think so to, I think the Ramesside family is a perfect example of this.
It is contextual. Here is what Keita thinks happened in northern Egypt during the proto-dynastic era to the Old Kingdom:
"The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an early ancestral group, by drift and gene exchange with the Near East. (This however, would not negate their lineage relationship with southerners.)
**Later**, depending on "starting" orientation, the **dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972).** Making a neat north/south "racial" division in dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically unsound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These racial terms are unnecessary. The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. **The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series.
And then, Keita concludes with:
This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occurred, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers. **The early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archeological data also support this position, which is not new.**
Over time, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile Valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants."
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
But do you think northern europeans would be an appropriate cranial group to compare with egyptians, due to the wide geographical distance between the two regions? And who said Middle Easterners (who are racially, Caucausian) have crania exactly like europeans? Get back to me.
Peace.
You may have noticed that Keita put the term European in quotation marks, meaning presumably European metrics, as various European researchers have noted as template values or standards by which to adjudge European cranio-metrical analysis. There is no way of knowing just by craniometry, to adjudge whether a given specimen from a geographical location outside of Europe, which nonetheless is relatively 'generalized' when compared with European specimens, that recent gene flow is accountable for such. Specimens from the Levant, for example, and mind you without skin attached, may well seem 'generalized' when compared with European specimens, meaning that, contrasting dicriminants are relatively shallow. Heck, even some specimens from the Sahelian regions, and the African Horn for example, may be relatively 'generalized' when compared with "Near Eastern" or "European" specimens; again, the point being that the constrasting morphological discriminants are relatively lesser when compared to specimens elsewhere with relatively sharper morphological discriminants. Needless to say, when talking about discriminants, final assessments are usually made in general terms, with regards to frequency of the variables under testing. Some specific traits are relatively more frequent in some pooled samples than others. For intance, while the so-called "Elongated" African specimens, when pooled together, may appear relatively 'generalized' with respect to those from southwest Asia and northern Eurasia, they also overlap with the so-called "Broad" types in some instances. For intance, although perhaps not as frequent as amongst the "Broad" types, prognathism may be relatively more frequent in the "Elongated" specimens than in some northern Eurasian specimens, prompting someone to call the phenomenon as a "hint" of "sub-Saharan", as Brace for example, inaccurately utilized the term "sub-Saharan".
Here are some interesting and instructive excerpts from Keita's notes:
“Kerma in the Sudan was the center of the early Kush state. These crania date from 2000 to 1800 BC. Collett (1933: 258) notes that: an attempt to divide the whole into two contrasting groups showed that it was quite impossible to distinguish the negroid specimens with any degree of exactness. Hence it was concluded that the safest procedure was to treat the total series as if it represented a single racial type which would obviously be one possessing negroid characters.”
“These crania are easily seen as “Elongated African” (Hiernaux, 1975) or “Nilotic Negro” (Rightmire, 1975a,b), rather than hybrids. The choice of Kerma as the series representative of Nubia is based on the observation that it lay in the middle range of Nubian variation (Mukherjee et al., 1955) and by Crichton’s (1966) views that Nubian series are the most appropriate comparison series of a Negroid people in studies examining Egyptian variation in its African context Ethnic Nubians, called Nehesy by the ancient Egyptians, vary in their phenotype. However, Egyptians, even those with the stereotypically Negroid (Broad) phenotype, were not called Nehesy, reinforcing the idea that Nehesy was an ethno-geographic, not “racial” term (Drake, 1987). The pharaoh who forbade the northern migration of riverine Nubians into Egypt was of an obviously “Negroid dynasty (Yurco, 1989), known to have southern origins.”
Hiernaux (1975) has accounted for variation in Africa using a nonracial approach; he does not specifically address the northern Nile Valley in great detail, but his concepts, based on micro-evolutionary principles (adaptation, drift, selection), are applicable in this region in the light of recent archaeological data. For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans, narrow faces and noses (versus broad “Negro” ones) do not usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or “Europoid“ (Caucasian) genes, called Hamitic as once taught, but represent indigenous variation, either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift (Hiernaux, 1975).
Hiernaux calls this morphology “Elongated African.” Some of the neolithic Saharans of tropical African affinity (Sutton, 1974; Hiernaux, 1975; after Chamla, 1968) who emigrated to the Nile Valley (Hassan, 1988) might be an example. The view that “elongated” characteristics are indigenous and equally tropical African (“Black) for specific archaeological series and peoples is supported by Gabel (19661, Hiernaux (1975), and Rightmire (1975a,b). The range of variation, “Broad” (stereotypical “Negro”) to Elongated, can be subsumed within a single unit designated Africoid, thereby acknowledging the wider affinities and multiple tropical microadaptive strategies, as well as drift.
Hiernaux’s perspectives are relevant to the creators of ancient Nile Valley culture, which is an integral part of, and originated in a larger African context (Frankfort, 1950; Childe, 1953; de Heinzelin, 1962; Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Fairman, 1965; Clark, 1970; Shaw, 1976; Vercoutter, 1978; Aldred, 1978; Hassan, 1988), and is not simply a part of, or a corridor to or from the “Mediterranean world”-a cultural construct with limited explanatory power today, as noted by Herzfeld (1984), and almost certainly less in the early Holocene.
“Mediterranean,” connoting a “race,” “one interbreeding population,” at the craniometric level, is questionable as defining the “Middle East” during the Bronze Age (Finkel, 1974,1978), invalid as a term linking geography to a uniform external phenotype (see Snowden, 1970; MacGaffey, 1966; Keita, 1990), inaccurate as a metric taxon for many groups previously assigned to it (Rightmire, 1975a,b), and problematic as a bony craniofacial morphotype denoting a “race” or Mendelian population because of its varied soft-part trait associations and wide geographical distribution (see “Hamitic” in Coon et al., 1950; Gabel, 1966; MacGaffey, 1966; Hiernaux, 1975; Rightmire, 1975a)…
Conclusions from cephalometric work imply the presence of southern phenotypes in the north in Old Kingdom times (Harris and Weeks, 1973), which become “foreign” in a chronological sense by New Kingdom times. Northern and dynastic Egyptians were postulated to be different from early southerners because of the invasion of a “dynastic race” or gene flow from the Near East (Smith, 1916; Derry, 1956; Trigger, 1987). Careful reading of these studies suggests synchronic and diachronic craniofacial variation in the north. Howells’ (1973) study which included the late dynastic northern “E” series, shows its “intermediateness,” since with a synthetic cluster technique it groups with northern Europeans but with a divisive method with tropical Africans (and of the Broad, [b]not Elongated physiognomy). Both approaches are valid but some investigators claim that the divisive technique produces more “natural” groups (Blakith and Reyment. 1971). Howells interprets the “E” series as being less Negroid than the pre-dynastic Nakadans, and “basically as European but converging on sub-Saharan Africans either through genetic contribution or environmental adaptation.” “Genetic contribution” is a more likely explanation given northern Egypt’s location, although it is not clear what the geographic origin of the “first” pre-Neolithic northern Egyptian populations was. The “E” series comes from the most cosmopolitan area of the country and from the era of foreign domination and settlement from northern Libya and the Near East. The “intermediateness” of the “E” series illustrates the nature of populations below the species or subspecies level (Abott et al., 1985)." - Keita
posted
Supercar, dawg, be patient, I was in class so I couldn't respond I kinda get what you're saying about "northern coastal africans phenotypes" but you still break it down further to laymen's terms, cause I'm not that trained in anthropology .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
The peopling of what is now the Egyptian Nile Valley, judging from archaeological and biological data, was apparently the result of a complex interaction between coastal northern Africans, “neolithic” Saharans, Nilotic hunters, and riverine proto-Nubians with some influence and migration from the Levant (Hassan, 1988). The major variability of early “Egyptians” is thus seen to have been mainly established in the proto-predynastic period by the settling of all of these peoples. No ongoing major mass movements of new groups into the valley are postulated between the early pre-dynastic and the latest dynastic period, with the possible exception of the Asiatic Hyksos.
Internal movements did occur. Given all of the data, these explanations of variability and its temporal origin are more plausible than Smith’s migration (1916) theories [or Oliver’s (1981) view echoing Morton (1844), which sees the presence of Egyptians with Negroid phenotypes as being the result of slavery during dynastic times!] The people with the various described phenotypes were united very early by a developing common culture. **By the time of the unification they were all “indigenous” and primarily African in origin.**
No major migrations need be invoked in most cases in dynastic times to explain variation. The next migrations of probable major genetic impact were during the late dynastic periods and beyond, after Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman ascensions. The predominant cranio-metric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is “southern” (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results (Keita, 1990). This pattern is seen in both group and unknown analyses. However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are ob- served also, thus making for great diversity. The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African to European metric phenotypes (Keita, 1990). It is not possible to say, because of the complex geometry of the multivariate method (Blakith and Reyment, 1971), what more specific affinities individual crania may have. The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians (Keita, 1990).
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Supercar, dawg, be patient, I was in class so I couldn't respond I kinda get what you're saying about "northern coastal africans phenotypes" but you still break it down further to laymen's terms, cause I'm not that trained in anthropology
My bad then. But to put it simply, Saharo-tropical cranio-morphological range comprises all sorts of cranial patterns from the so-called "broad" nasal index, prognathus, round-face, to narrow nasal index, orthoganus, "narrow faces", and so forth. Keita sees the northern Egyptian proto-dynastic and early dynastic groups as largely of indigenous extraction, from early Nile Valley settlers from Saharo-tropical regions, who "might" have seen some gene flow from the "Near East" before state formation of dynastic Egypt, but not in the sense of "mass migration" from the Levant, and not enough to really make much of an impact on pre-existing Nile Valley populations, who would have still had ties with their upper Nile Valley counterparts, lineage-wise; Any potential immigrant from the "Near East" in Lower Egypt would have assimilated and become part of the pre-existing or developing African cultural complex, rather than supplanting it. In upper Egypt, meanwhile, we are already familiar with the relatively superior social organizations over there, spanning the proto-dynastic to state formation, not to mention, larger population sizes over here at the time. So in a nutshell, development of complex social organization in the Nile Valley through to state formation of dynastic Egypt had nothing to do with "mass migration" into the Nile Valley.
Ps - The lack of clear assessment on the "starting orientation" [as Keita put it] of Lower pre-dynastic Egyptian specimens, from a cranio-morphological standpoint, has to do with very poor conservation of pre-dynastic Lower Egyptian skeletal remains.
Keeping in mind how fluid craniometry can be, based on either evolutionary convergence (parallel evolution) and/or gene flow,…
Coastal north African pattern can be interpreted as:
“…northern modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes.” - Keita
Example #1:
“The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African to European metric phenotypes (Keita, 1990).
Example #2:
**The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series. - Keita
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^So these studies pretty much repeat what Batrawi et al. has said.
The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute: "The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia" (1945) Batrawi - Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period.Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You really think Keita is a modern, objective form of Batwari? I can see where you're coming from, but Keita states that the Lower Egyptian and Upper Egyptian cranio-facial patterns converge on one another, where as Batwari states that the "northern type" dominates from the first dynasty onwards. But doesn't Keita say the Late dynastic northern egyptian crania are similar to a subset of "middle eastern" crania? Get back to me.
posted
Very nice thread Supercar. One must look very carefully at terminology and context within these anthropological studies, otherwise it is very easy to misinterpret conclusions.
Btw, when you are citing studies could you please end the citation with the name of the study you are quoting from? I am familiar enough with which quote comes from which but some readers may want to look up the studies and not know where the text comes from.
Example:
Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less “native” are not supported by archeology. In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data.” - Keita 1992 (Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa)Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You really think Keita is a modern, objective form of Batwari? I can see where you're coming from, but Keita states that the Lower Egyptian and Upper Egyptian cranio-facial patterns converge on one another, where as Batwari states that the "northern type" dominates from the first dynasty onwards.
Are you basing this on another citation of Batrawi's elsewhere, or the piece that Djehuti just cited? The piece Djehuti cited talks of "closely related types", which if based on cranial data alone, as I suspect, would imply overlapping of craniometry in composite entities from northern Egypt and southern Egypt. It would be good to know what specimens, not to mention the era, Batrawi presumably studied.
quote:Obelisk_18:
But doesn't Keita say the Late dynastic northern egyptian crania are similar to a subset of "middle eastern" crania?
I believe this should have been worded the other way around, which is: a "subset" of late dynastic north Egyptian crania likely had affinities with "middle eastern" crania. Northern Egyptian crania contained crania ranging from equatorial or tropical patterns to the relatively generalized patterns with respect to those seen in the Maghreb [which also exhibits an intermediate pattern], "Near East" and Europe. See the coming posts:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^So these studies pretty much repeat what Batrawi et al. has said.
The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute: "The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia" (1945)
Batrawi - Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period.
Not sure what you specifically mean, but if you referring the point about ancient north Egyptian and south Egyptian populations showing distinctive trends while sharing bloodlines, then Keita does raise this issue, and yes, even cites Batrawi in that regard. Of course, Batrawi's analysis is based relative frequencies of traits observed in the ‘composite’ entities under study. Recall Tut's crania being referred to as "North African Caucasian" presumably based on the "narrow" nasal index. Keita's studies show ancient north Egyptian collections to be intermediate, with regards to the containing cranial patterns observed in tropical African specimens and “Eurasian” specimens, and as such, any extrapolation towards a somewhat "homogenous" orientation at some point in time in coastal/northern Egypt, would be just that, i.e. speculation. Also, recall Hiernaux’s assessments about sub-Saharan African diversity, in terms of the traits which the Batrawi citation makes note of. Earliest remains in the Nile Valley and even the Levant, tend to fit the "stereotyped" Forest Negro, and while aside from such remains [i.e. featuring “stereotyped” traits] uncovered in East Africa, which Groves interestingly dubs as "generalized", remains featuring narrow cranial index and nasal index had also been uncovered in Kenya.
Recalling from Keita:
“For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans, narrow faces and noses (versus broad “Negro” ones) do not usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or “Europoid“ (Caucasian) genes, called Hamitic as once taught, but represent indigenous variation, either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift (Hiernaux, 1975).”
With regards to the aforementioned “intermediate” status of composite ancient northern Egyptian and Maghreban specimens, also dubbed “coastal northern” pattern, we have:
"The analyses demonstrate the metric heterogeneity of pre-Roman mid-Holocene Maghreban crania. The range of variation in the restricted area described extends from a tropical African metric pattern to a European one and supports the phenotypic variability observed in and near Carthage by ancient writers and in morphological studies. Thus the population emerges as a composite entity, no doubt also containing hybrid individuals. However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indicates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans.. Furthermore, the series from the coastal Maghreb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses." - Keita
Some more interesting read:
"The predynastic crania of northern Egypt have been stated to be less or non- “Negroid” (Coon 1939), although some writers have reported features generally called such in some northern groups (Hayes 1965). Wiercinski’s (1962, 1963) detailed anatomical descriptions of northern crania, suggest that there was some overlap with more southern groups like the Nubians, although more different than Badari groups from further south. Badari and Nakada crania fall within the range of “Neolithic” Saharan and later Nubian or Kushite crania (see descriptions above; personal observation). Descriptions (Briggs 1955; Chamla 1968) of these “Neolithic” Saharan crania suggest extensive overlap with the various kinds of southern Egyptian and tropical African morphologies and metric patterns. Hiernaux (1975) suggests that these Saharan patterns are ancestral to those of later West Africans; this would perhaps include of the narrow-faced and narrow-nosed “Elongated” groups to which the label “Hamitic” was once applied. He has parsimoniously explained how the “Hamitic” morphology, called by him “Elongated,” is indigenous to Africa, and not due to external sources. The natural geographical range of these populations included at least southern Egypt." - Keita
Coon reputation for reactionary work and outdated concepts are all too known, but it is interesting to note that he makes note of “predynastic” northern Egyptian specimens, which as far as I know, have rarely been available to researchers for studies, due to poor conservative conditions that were prevalent in northern Egypt, i.e. as far as skeletal remains are concerned.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Not sure what you [Djehuti] specifically mean, but if you referring the point about ancient north Egyptian and south Egyptian populations showing distinctive trends while sharing bloodlines, then Keita does raise this issue, and yes, even cites Batrawi in that regard...
That is exactly what I mean. Batrawi calls the Upper and Lower Egyptian populations 'distinct' due to certain differences, yet closely related due to certain commonalities.
quote:..Of course, Batrawi's analysis is based relative frequencies of traits observed in the ‘composite’ entities under study. Recall Tut's crania being referred to as "North African Caucasian" presumably based on the "narrow" nasal index. Keita's studies show ancient north Egyptian collections to be intermediate, with regards to the containing cranial patterns observed in tropical African specimens and “Eurasian” specimens, and as such, any extrapolation towards a somewhat "homogenous" orientation at some point in time in coastal/northern Egypt, would be just that, i.e. speculation. Also, recall Hiernaux’s assessments about sub-Saharan African diversity, in terms of the traits which the Batrawi citation makes note of. Earliest remains in the Nile Valley and even the Levant, tend to fit the "stereotyped" Forest Negro, and while aside from such remains [i.e. featuring “stereotyped” traits] uncovered in East Africa, which Groves interestingly dubs as "generalized", remains featuring narrow cranial index and nasal index had also been uncovered in Kenya.
Indeed, such reactionary conclusions of "caucasoid" come from debunked Coonian anthroplogy. We all know that such so-called 'kacazoid' features are indigenous to Africans have nothing to do with foreign incursions.
quote:Recalling from Keita:
“For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans, narrow faces and noses (versus broad “Negro” ones) do not usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or “Europoid“ (Caucasian) genes, called Hamitic as once taught, but represent indigenous variation, either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift (Hiernaux, 1975).”
Correct.
quote:With regards to the aforementioned “intermediate” status of composite ancient northern Egyptian and Maghreban specimens, also dubbed “coastal northern” pattern, we have:
"The analyses demonstrate the metric heterogeneity of pre-Roman mid-Holocene Maghreban crania. The range of variation in the restricted area described extends from a tropical African metric pattern to a European one and supports the phenotypic variability observed in and near Carthage by ancient writers and in morphological studies. Thus the population emerges as a composite entity, no doubt also containing hybrid individuals. However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indicates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans.. Furthermore, the series from the coastal Maghreb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses." - Keita
^I myself am not all surprised by such findings. In fact, I have for long while hypothesized that Lower Egyptians have a close relation to early peoples of the Maghreb. In fact, I think the 'intermediate' status comes from certain features. For example, Berbers like the Tuareg have 'peculiar' features like long straight noses.
Are you also aware that the earliest European descriptions of coastal North Africans other than Egyptians as made by the Greeks described them as 'Aethiopes'? Greeks describe Libyans and others further west of Egypt as black peoples. There is no reference of 'Asiatic' or even European type looks to these peoples.
quote:Some more interesting read:
"The predynastic crania of northern Egypt have been stated to be less or non- “Negroid” (Coon 1939), although some writers have reported features generally called such in some northern groups (Hayes 1965). Wiercinski’s (1962, 1963) detailed anatomical descriptions of northern crania, suggest that there was some overlap with more southern groups like the Nubians, although more different than Badari groups from further south. Badari and Nakada crania fall within the range of “Neolithic” Saharan and later Nubian or Kushite crania (see descriptions above; personal observation). Descriptions (Briggs 1955; Chamla 1968) of these “Neolithic” Saharan crania suggest extensive overlap with the various kinds of southern Egyptian and tropical African morphologies and metric patterns. Hiernaux (1975) suggests that these Saharan patterns are ancestral to those of later West Africans; this would perhaps include of the narrow-faced and narrow-nosed “Elongated” groups to which the label “Hamitic” was once applied. He has parsimoniously explained how the “Hamitic” morphology, called by him “Elongated,” is indigenous to Africa, and not due to external sources. The natural geographical range of these populations included at least southern Egypt." - Keita[/qb]
Another example of the fact of African phenotypic diversity that so many people are obvlious of.
quote:Coon reputation for reactionary work and outdated concepts are all too known, but it is interesting to note that he makes note of “predynastic” northern Egyptian specimens, which as far as I know, have rarely been available to researchers for studies, due to poor conservative conditions that were prevalent in northern Egypt, i.e. as far as skeletal remains are concerned.
Yes, and then you have people who simply just can't "stand" having entirely indigenous or shall I say 'pure' Africans responsible for such cultural achievements, but would rather for them to be of "mixed" non-African origins. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I myself am not all surprised by such findings. In fact, I have for long while hypothesized that Lower Egyptians have a close relation to early peoples of the Maghreb. In fact, I think the 'intermediate' status comes from certain features. For example, Berbers like the Tuareg have 'peculiar' features like long straight noses.
Are you also aware that the earliest European descriptions of coastal North Africans other than Egyptians as made by the Greeks described them as 'Aethiopes'? Greeks describe Libyans and others further west of Egypt as black peoples. There is no reference of 'Asiatic' or even European type looks to these peoples.
I was following you elsewhere, except when it came to the highlighted piece. Can you please elaborate on it. I've always thought that the Tuareg physiognomy was to be placed and found in the Saharo-tropical ranges. Does Hiernaux come to mind?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My theory of human facial physiogamy is that humans are peculiarly adapted to communicating. Communication is primarly based on sound [speech] and sight.
In order to communicate with one another, humans have developed and amazing tendency for variable facial features, and an ability to identify one another [a prerequisite for sophesticated communication] on sight.
Think about this in terms of, you meet somone, one time, and then years later you see them in and airport in another city half 'round the world.
How can you possible identify one person from among the millions?
You can because you recognise their face.
Humans closest relatives - Chimpanzees - can't do this.
In fact it is objectively true that Chimpanzee faces do not vary as much as human.
Chimps and dogs can recognise humans by 'sight' better than they can recognise individuals within their own species. Humans are simply, by design, different in appearance one from another.
Which leads to....
There is documented tendency of humans and hominids to *either* have rounded faces with lower noses and protrusion of the jaw, *or* narrow faces with longer higher noses and less protrusion of the jaw.
These tendencies are further influenced by selection to climate and sexual selection.
This goes back even to Neanderthal man.
Remember - before it was known that Neanderthal is a separate species...some anthropologist, Carelton Coon comes to mind, tried to classify them 'racially' as negroid or caucazoid.
This is also why even on the isolated Andaman Islands, or Paleolithic rift valley Africa 'skulls' were mis-classified according to racial archtypes.
Racially is essentially a sophistry buzzword, something meant to give illusion of meaning, while evading being pinned down on specifics
Cranioficial variation is not 'racial'.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
My theory of human facial physiogamy is that humans are peculiarly adapted to communicating. Communication is primarly based on sound [speech] and sight.
In order to communicate with one another, humans have developed and amazing tendency for variable facial features, and an ability to identify one another [a prerequisite for sophesticated communication] on sight.
Think about this in terms of, you meet somone, one time, and then years later you see them in and airport in another city half 'round the world.
How can you possible identify one person from among the millions?
You can because you recognise their face.
Humans closest relatives - Chimpanzees - can't do this.
In fact it is objectively true that Chimpanzee faces do not vary as much as human.
Chimps and dogs can recognise humans by 'sight' better than they can recognise individuals within their own species. Humans are simply, by design, different in appearance one from another.
Which leads to....
There is documented tendency of humans and hominids to *either* have rounded faces with lower noses and protrusion of the jaw, *or* narrow faces with longer higher noses and less protrusion of the jaw.
These tendencies are further influenced by selection to climate and sexual selection.
Human cranial physiognomy is indeed complex, and a number of factors can be at play; as with pretty much any other bone morphology, it cannot be genetically predicted or predetermined.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Thus the double game of our old friend 'racial reality' [Evil Euro], where 'n-groid' features in Europeans is not 'racial', but 'K-zoid' features found anywhere are *always* 'racial.'
Leading to the question -> what means 'racial'?
Resulting always in no answer, because the 'reality' is he didn't have one.
Now back to the AE:
Of one claims that the AE we not black 'racially', one assumes the burdan of proof in regards to 'racially', as a necessary qualifier of 'blackness'.
If they can't affirm the meaning of 'racially' then their statement is without merit.
If one claims that the AE were 'Black', one abobts the burdan of proof with regards to 'Black'.
1) prove the existence of race. 2) dis-prove the existence of Km.t [Blacks], as defined.
It's and open challenge.....
Must be daunting, as nobody has been up for it here to date, and it remains to be seen if anybody will, soon enough.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I myself am not all surprised by such findings. In fact, I have for long while hypothesized that Lower Egyptians have a close relation to early peoples of the Maghreb. In fact, I think the 'intermediate' status comes from certain features. For example, Berbers like the Tuareg have 'peculiar' features like long straight noses.
Are you also aware that the earliest European descriptions of coastal North Africans other than Egyptians as made by the Greeks described them as 'Aethiopes'? Greeks describe Libyans and others further west of Egypt as black peoples. There is no reference of 'Asiatic' or even European type looks to these peoples.
I was following you elsewhere, except when it came to the highlighted piece. Can you please elaborate on it. I've always thought that the Tuareg physiognomy was to be placed and found in the Saharo-tropical ranges. Does Hiernaux come to mind?
I never said that Tuareg physiognomy wasn't to be placed in the Saharo-tropical ranges! I'm merely repeating what I've heard from some Africans and peoples who visited Africa who describe Tuareg features including the so-called 'peculiarity' of their long straight noses. As if such noses are not found elsewhere in Africa! I have also noticed that many depictions of Lower Egyptians show them to have the same type of 'Tuareg' nose! Coincidence? I think not.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
My theory of human facial physiogamy is that humans are peculiarly adapted to communicating. Communication is primarly based on sound [speech] and sight.
In order to communicate with one another, humans have developed and amazing tendency for variable facial features, and an ability to identify one another [a prerequisite for sophesticated communication] on sight.
Think about this in terms of, you meet somone, one time, and then years later you see them in and airport in another city half 'round the world.
How can you possible identify one person from among the millions?
You can because you recognise their face.
Humans closest relatives - Chimpanzees - can't do this.
In fact it is objectively true that Chimpanzee faces do not vary as much as human.
Chimps and dogs can recognise humans by 'sight' better than they can recognise individuals within their own species. Humans are simply, by design, different in appearance one from another.
Which leads to....
There is documented tendency of humans and hominids to *either* have rounded faces with lower noses and protrusion of the jaw, *or* narrow faces with longer higher noses and less protrusion of the jaw.
These tendencies are further influenced by selection to climate and sexual selection.
Human cranial physiognomy is indeed complex, and a number of factors can be at play; as with pretty much any other bone morphology, it cannot be genetically predicted or predetermined.
Human cranial morphology is stated to be thee most variable trait of the human species. Even the morphology of the rest of the skeletal body does not vary as much and scientists have a better chance determining origins through that. Although, of course tropical body plans are not confined to Africans alone and neither are cold body plans to Europeans. Still, the range of variability among facial traits is very great. There are many anthropologists who agree with the theory Rasol provides. That such facial variablity may very well have to do with communication and identification.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Thus the double game of our old friend 'racial reality' [Evil Euro], where 'n-groid' features in Europeans is not 'racial', but 'K-zoid' features found anywhere are *always* 'racial.'
Leading to the question -> what means 'racial'?
Resulting always in no answer, because the 'reality' is he didn't have one.
The same can even be said of some Africans who speak of "Bantu" features and "Horner"/"Aethiopid" features! LOL
quote:Now back to the AE:
Of one claims that the AE we not black 'racially', one assumes the burdan of proof in regards to 'racially', as a necessary qualifier of 'blackness'.
If they can't affirm the meaning of 'racially' then their statement is without merit.
If one claims that the AE were 'Black', one abobts the burdan of proof with regards to 'Black'.
For the definition given is both ancient and current, reflected in what the "AE" called themselves.
Those who disagree have two valid options.
1) prove the existence of race. 2) dis-prove the existence of Km.t [Blacks], as defined.
It's and open challenge.....
And unfortunately others try to play the game of stupid semantic in claiming that Egyptians have 'brown' skin which is different from 'black'! LMAOPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, late dynastic northern Egyptians had phenotypes "intermediate" between tropical Africans (e.g. Upper Egyptians) and Europeans...what would that look like, Halle Berry or any other person who's half-black, half-white in America today?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
And rasol how is UM question "irrational" he just means in Keita's term "intermediate" did he mean to say the the average lower egyptian look like Halle Berry? What's your interpretation?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
And rasol how is UM question "irrational" he just means in Keita's term "intermediate" did he mean to say the the average lower egyptian look like Halle Berry? What's your interpretation?
I think he means why are people in africa not expected to have differences in look without explenation of outside influnece, while people in europe (such as south euro) are considered to have native look despite visible difference between them and north euros.
btw now that we are on this, i've noticed here in sweden when the police is after a middle-eastern suspect (which they always are) they never say "middle eastern appearence" they always say "the man has a southern european appearence", always, even though southern europeans in sweden are very few, while 70 percent of immigrants here a from the middle east and people know exactly who they mean. I wonder why this is, i always thought it was a "political correctness" thing to do, but now i think they maybe try to institutionalize that this look is more natural to southern europeans while middle easterners have been influenced by southern europeans Maybe im drifting LOL
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: I wonder why this is, i always thought it was a "political correctness" thing to do, but now i think they maybe try to institutionalize that this look is more natural to southern europeans while middle easterners have been influenced by southern europeans
Evergreen Writes:
Interesting position. Anthropologists make many references to the so-called "Bantu" migrations from North Africa. Very seldom have we seen research on the Germanic migrations over most of Europe, NW Africa and parts of SW Asia and the genetic impact.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
And rasol how is UM question "irrational" he just means in Keita's term "intermediate" did he mean to say the the average lower egyptian look like Halle Berry? What's your interpretation?
I think he means why are people in africa not expected to have differences in look without explenation of outside influnece, while people in europe (such as south euro) are considered to have native look despite visible difference between them and north euros.
Bingo! Yonis, you hit it right on target. Underpants asked merely what is meant by "intermediate", but when taking native African even "Sub-Saharan" phenotypical diversity into account it is not so hard to imagine. His question is kind of redundant anyway since it has already been answered by ME!
Again I repeat: In Braces early studies on African crania (the same one Evil-Euro loves to use) it is noted that Somali are also said to be "intermediate" between 'Sub-Saharans' (Bantus) and Western Europeans. In fact Evil-Euro loves to talk about how Somalis in certain craniofacial aspects are closer to Dutch than to say South African Bambuti! Now, does this mean Somalis look like a mix between Dutch and Bantus?? Of course not!
quote:btw now that we are on this, i've noticed here in sweden when the police is after a middle-eastern suspect (which they always are) they never say "middle eastern appearence" they always say "the man has a southern european appearence", always, even though southern europeans in sweden are very few, while 70 percent of immigrants here a from the middle east and people know exactly who they mean. I wonder why this is, i always thought it was a "political correctness" thing to do, but now i think they maybe try to institutionalize that this look is more natural to southern europeans while middle easterners have been influenced by southern europeans Maybe im drifting LOL
LOL You are correct Yonis! It is indeed a "politically correct" debaucle. They try so hard not to discriminate against peoples of Middle Eastern descent by avoiding the phrase Middle-Eastern looking LOL. Yet they fail to realize that peoples of the Middle East are of diverse ancestry and looks and Southern Europeans themselves have Middle-Eastern ancestry! So you can see the fallacy in this politically incorrect "politically correct" nonsense. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So, late dynastic northern Egyptians had phenotypes "intermediate" between tropical Africans (e.g. Upper Egyptians) and Europeans...what would that look like, Halle Berry or any other person who's half-black, half-white in America today?
Repeatedly reading a material is sometimes the best way to understand something that was not adequately understood the first time around, when it was posted. So again, from earlier notes herein...
[*]When looking at craniometry, one has to understand that we are simply dealing with morphology [without the soft parts attached, off course], nothing else. As such, assessments are based on frequency of the discriminants under consideration.
Cranial patterns common in the Levant, are more "generalized", in the sense that the contrasting morphological discriminants here, when compared with patterns in northern Eurasia, are relatively small. In this regard, the "generalized" pattern or trend approaching such, are observed in East African tropics, like in the African Horn, and Sahelian-West African regions. Just to give you an example; take prognathism, as a discriminant via certain angular cranial measurements. Such while not absent in northern Eurasian crania, is more frequent in various sub-Saharan crania. Decreasing tendencies of "stereotyped" traits [see: "Forest Negro"] of sub-Saharan Africans, is what prompts folks like Brace to say things like this:
"the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component."
"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa."
[*]You may have noticed that Keita put the term European in quotation marks, meaning presumably European metrics, as various European researchers have noted as template values or standards by which to adjudge European cranio-metrical analysis. There is no way of knowing just by craniometry, to adjudge whether a given specimen from a geographical location outside of Europe, which nonetheless is relatively 'generalized' when compared with European specimens, that recent gene flow is accountable for such.
Specimens from the Levant, for example, and mind you without skin attached, may well seem 'generalized' when compared with European specimens, meaning that, contrasting dicriminants are relatively shallow. Heck, even some specimens from the Sahelian regions, and the African Horn for example, may be relatively 'generalized' when compared with "Near Eastern" or "European" specimens; again, the point being that the contrasting morphological discriminants are relatively lesser when compared to specimens elsewhere with relatively sharper morphological discriminants. ..
…Some specific traits are relatively more frequent in some pooled samples than others. For instance, while the so-called "Elongated" African specimens, when pooled together, may appear relatively 'generalized' with respect to those from southwest Asia and northern Eurasia, they also overlap with the so-called "Broad" types in some instances. For instance, although perhaps not as frequent as amongst the "Broad" types, prognathism may be relatively more frequent in the "Elongated" specimens than in some northern Eurasian specimens, prompting someone to call the phenomenon as a "hint" of "sub-Saharan", as Brace for example, inaccurately utilized the term "sub-Saharan".
Here are some interesting and instructive excerpts from Keita's notes:
“Kerma in the Sudan was the center of the early Kush state. These crania date from 2000 to 1800 BC. Collett (1933: 258) notes that: an attempt to divide the whole into two contrasting groups showed that it was quite impossible to distinguish the negroid specimens with any degree of exactness. Hence it was concluded that the safest procedure was to treat the total series as if it represented a single racial type which would obviously be one possessing negroid characters.”
^^The researchers in question, as you can see, were at pains to box the variations in their specimens into clear cut caricature phenotypes, but how did Hiernaux interpret this phenomenon, according to Keita? Well, see below…
“These crania are easily seen as “Elongated African” (Hiernaux, 1975) or “Nilotic Negro” (Rightmire, 1975a,b), rather than hybrids. The choice of Kerma as the series representative of Nubia is based on the observation that it lay in the middle range of Nubian variation (Mukherjee et al., 1955) and by Crichton’s (1966) views that Nubian series are the most appropriate comparison series of a Negroid people in studies examining Egyptian variation in its African context Ethnic Nubians, called Nehesy by the ancient Egyptians, vary in their phenotype. However, Egyptians, even those with the stereotypically Negroid (Broad) phenotype, were not called Nehesy, reinforcing the idea that Nehesy was an ethno-geographic, not “racial” term (Drake, 1987). The pharaoh who forbade the northern migration of riverine Nubians into Egypt was of an obviously “Negroid dynasty (Yurco, 1989), known to have southern origins.
Hiernaux (1975) has accounted for variation in Africa using a nonracial approach; he does not specifically address the northern Nile Valley in great detail, but his concepts, based on micro-evolutionary principles (adaptation, drift, selection), are applicable in this region in the light of recent archaeological data. For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans, narrow faces and noses (versus broad “Negro” ones) do not usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or “Europoid“ (Caucasian) genes, called Hamitic as once taught, but represent indigenous variation, either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift (Hiernaux, 1975).
Hiernaux calls this morphology “Elongated African.” Some of the neolithic Saharans of tropical African affinity (Sutton, 1974; Hiernaux, 1975; after Chamla, 1968) who emigrated to the Nile Valley (Hassan, 1988) might be an example. The view that “elongated” characteristics are indigenous and equally tropical African (“Black) for specific archaeological series and peoples is supported by Gabel (19661, Hiernaux (1975), and Rightmire (1975a,b).
The range of variation, “Broad” (stereotypical “Negro”) to Elongated, can be subsumed within a single unit designated Africoid, thereby acknowledging the wider affinities and multiple tropical microadaptive strategies, as well as drift." - Keita
^^People often like to willfully ignore the fact that ancient Egyptian crania, even in Upper Egypt, were by no means homogenous. They comprise both "broad" and "elongated" types, as Keita and others have consistently demonstrated; Keita, in particular, has shown this through his comparison of Upper Egyptian crania with the Kerma series, and those further south in Africa.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I agree that Africans( "blacks") have the greatest phenotypical diversity of all peoples, and that many of them, because of this extreme diversity and , do not comply to the "Forest Negro" stereotype. But in terms of Keita's work we HAVE to take into account Northern Egypt's LOCATION, it's right next to the Middle East for Christ sake, and you're telling me there was NO migration from that area?! With the coming of the Hyksos Semites would come into the delta with the force of an unbridled flood! In short, the reason that Northern egyptian crania are different (but not unrelated) from their southern counterparts in some characteristics is due mostly to mixing (even if small-scale) with Near Easterners, and the rest to genetic drift. Keita said it himself! But Egyptian crania overall, as my man Keita says, group with Africans (esp. Sudanese and Saharan)instead of their soon to be conquerors . So I still stand, Lower Egyptians were mulattoes . But we all know in America half-black, well, damnit, means black. Sadly that rule was reversed with Coon-era anthropology. Ah whitey and their hypocritical racial ideologies ):
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I agree that Africans( "blacks") have the greatest phenotypical diversity of all peoples, and that many of them, because of this extreme diversity and , do not comply to the "Forest Negro" stereotype.
Good; I hope you bookmark this remark, when you make comments in the future, and for reasons you shall soon see...
quote:Obelisk_18:
But in terms of Keita's work we HAVE to take into account Northern Egypt's LOCATION, it's right next to the Middle East for Christ sake, and you're telling me there was NO migration from that area?!
Who are you referring to, and where is the citation that tells you what you are claiming to be told? Produce this citation quick!
quote:Obelisk_18:
With the coming of the Hyksos Semites would come into the delta with the force of an unbridled flood! In short, the reason that Northern egyptian crania are different (but not unrelated) from their southern counterparts in some characteristics is due mostly to mixing (even if small-scale) with Near Easterners, and the rest to genetic drift. Keita said it himself!
Where did Keita say the crania found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners"?
quote:Obelisk_18:
But Egyptian crania overall, as my man Keita says, group with Africans (esp. Sudanese and Saharan)instead of their soon to be conquerors . So I still stand, Lower Egyptians were mulattoes .
...and I will stand firm to tell you that, your usage of "mulattoes" is intellectually bankrupt. What do you mean by this; "racial purity" perhaps?
quote:Obelisk_18:
But we all know in America half-black, well, damnit, means black. Sadly that rule was reversed with Coon-era anthropology. Ah whitey and their hypocritical racial ideologies
What is said in America or elsewhere outside the realm of science, has no bearings on the "scientific" discourse of this topic, as I intended when I opened it.
Moving on...
Classic Greek scholars described Egyptians as "melanoderms" in their own terms. But even the ancient Egyptians in many occasions depicted themselves much darker than folks from southwest Asia and Europe. Now, we know from skeletal remains, that ancient Egyptian specimens, particularly from Upper Egypt, were described as 'tropical body plans'. This naturally implies the same for skin tone, if skin were attached to the bones. However, if this were not enough, given that we were not there in dynastic Egypt, and for those, who don't care to take classical Greek scholars at their word, this is how the Kemetians depicted themselves then...
All depictions, show women and men working both 'indoors' and 'outdoors'.
...at least, from what we can tell from these images is that, at around this period, Egyptians were generally dark skin folks. But how do we know that this is very likely the case? Well, even modern studies show that, despite much influx from northern areas throughout history, Egyptians are still relatively dark skin folks. See, for instance...
...from this, it is perhaps safe to say that, Nile Valley populations were even more darker than they were prior to histories of gene flow with people from Northern Eurasia.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did Keita say the crania found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners"? Um, Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa and its successor study Further Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa cha-chi? and I didn't say Near Easterners made up the entire population of Lower Egypt, I just said they mixed with the indigenous population, thus making them somewhat different, cranio-facially, from their southern counterparts, there's also genetic drift, as it occurs with all populations .
and I will stand firm to tell you that, your usage of "mulattoes" is intellectually bankrupt. What do you mean by this; "racial purity" perhaps? Yes, cha-chi, I meant "racial purity", as in having 100 percent of your DNA indicating descent from Group X or Group Y. Upper egyptians were craniofacially and genetically indistinct from their sudanese counterparts, while Lower Egyptians, descended from migrating upper egyptians (that seems to be the direction the neolithic, as well as civilization, took in egypt, south to north babe ) also mixed with near easterners and europeans, due to its proximity to the two areas. That simple, baby.
What is said in America or elsewhere outside the realm of science, has no bearings on the "scientific" discourse of this topic, as I intended when I opened it. Moving on... I gotta agree.
Classic Greek scholars described Egyptians as "melanoderms" in their own terms. But even the ancient Egyptians in many occasions depicted themselves much darker that folks from southwest Asia and Europe. Now, we know from skeletal remains, that ancient Egyptian specimens, particularly from Upper Egypt, were described as 'tropical body plans'. This naturally implies the same for skin tone, if skin were attached to the bones. However, if this were not enough, given that we were not there in dynastic Egypt, and for those, who don't care to take classical Greek scholars to their word, this is how the Kemetians themselves depicted themselves then... Of course, why would the egyptians make false representations of themselves?! The Africanity of Egypt is also confirmed through portraiture, notice how the eurocentrists get silent whenever we bring up a portrait of Menes or Djoser, and Khufu instead of, how Keita put it " portraits of late dynastic greek/roman conquerors". You see supercar I actually READ the studies I'm referring to.
All depictions, show women and men working both 'indoors' and 'outdoors'.
...at least, from what we can tell from these images, is that, at around this period, Egyptians were generally dark skin folks. But how do we know that this is very likely the case? Well, even modern studies show that, despite much influx from northern areas throughout history, Egyptians are still relatively dark skin folks. See, for instance...
... from this, it is perhaps safe to say that, Nile Valley populations were even more darker than they were prior to histories of gene flow with people from the Northern Eurasia. Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Of course there were migrations into the Delta from the Levant during historical times by example of the Hyksos, but what has this got to do with the the topic of this thread-- that of coastal northern African populations who existed since predynatic times and have nothing to do with migrations from the Near East??
Both Supe and I have addressed what Keita meant by "intermediate" position in craniofacial anatomy more than once, but apparently you cannot understand or refuse to understand but rather go with the "mixed-race" "mulatto" politically-incorrect political appeasement.
Are you aware that there is evidence of prehistoric migrations from Egypt (Africa) and into the Levant and Mesopotamia and even the Aegean including Greece as well as the rest of southern Europe-- all of which predate Levantine immigrations into Egypt??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:btw now that we are on this, i've noticed here in sweden when the police is after a middle-eastern suspect (which they always are) they never say "middle eastern appearence" they always say "the man has a southern european appearence", always, even though southern europeans in sweden are very few, while 70 percent of immigrants here a from the middle east and people know exactly who they mean.
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Of course there were migrations into the Delta from the Levant during historical times by example of the Hyksos, but what has this got to do with the the topic of this thread-- that of coastal northern African populations who existed since predynatic times and have nothing to do with migrations from the Near East?? So you're saying non-blacks present in the intermediate coastal patterns are native to Africa? If lower "coastal" egyptians are as black as their southern civilizing brethren, how come they display different craniometric trends?
Both Supe and I have addressed what Keita meant by "intermediate" position in craniofacial anatomy more than once, but apparently you cannot understand or refuse to understand but rather go with the "mixed-race" "mulatto" politically-incorrect political appeasement. Politically incorrect appeasement? excuse me? I'm simply stating the facts regarding the "racial" make-up of dynastic lower egypt, babe .
Are you aware that there is evidence of prehistoric migrations from Egypt (Africa) and into the Levant and Mesopotamia and even the Aegean including Greece as well as the rest of southern Europe-- all of which predate Levantine immigrations into Egypt?? Ah, the Natufians, who led to the first establishment of agriculture? Of course. I know the history of my people, true name of Thoth Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: right next to the Middle East for Christ sake, and you're telling me there was NO migration from that area?!
The Middle East is right next to Africa for Christ sake, are you telling me there was NO migration from Africa into the Middle-East?
Southern Europe is right next to Africa for Christ sake. Are you saying there was no migration from Africa to Southern-Europe?
Southern Europe is right next to the Middle East for Christ sake. are you saying that there was no migration from the Middle East to Europe.
It's bad form to spell the obvious out like we're talking to children, but the lack of comprehension leaves one with little choice.
Are Rome and Greece' European authenticty predicated on the unreasonable qualifier of demonstrating no migrations into Europe by any non European people?
No.
Is Mesopotamia's "middle eastern" [mid-east itself as a geopolitical reference is *a joke* and certain indication that the person using the term is not thinking for himself but merely parroting his European mind-lord] authenticity predicated on no migrations from Africa, from Europe, from India, from East Asia?
No.
Then why is it necessary to show that there be absolutely no migrations of non-Africans into the Nile Valley in order to discuss Nile Valley civilisation as authentically African?
The answer is, it isn't. Period.
Now i've spelt out in several pedantic paragraphs what should really be a one sentense response:
The question was rhetorical, and a poorly disguised strawman argument, which Supercar correctly identified and dismissed:
quote:Supercar: Who are you referring to, and where is the citation that tells you what you are claiming to be told? Produce this citation quick!
posted
Um, two points cha-chi, I NEVER said there were no migrations from out of Africa, you idiots have been taking my argument (the racial make-up of Lower Egyptians) out of context. I had a factually supported position, I defended it like Stalingrad, and all hell breaks loose o:. Two, when have I EVER denied the complete Africanity of Ancient Egypt? When have I ever denied the facts?!
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Where did Keita say the crania found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners"?
Um, Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa and its successor study Further Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa cha-chi? and I didn't say Near Easterners made up the entire population of Lower Egypt, I just said they mixed with the indigenous population, thus making them somewhat different, cranio-facially, from their southern counterparts, there's also genetic drift, as it occurs with all populations .
Apparently, you did not understand the question the first time around, so I'll clarify:
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
quote:Obelisk_18:
quote:Supercar:
and I will stand firm to tell you that, your usage of "mulattoes" is intellectually bankrupt. What do you mean by this; "racial purity" perhaps?
Yes, cha-chi, I meant "racial purity", as in having 100 percent of your DNA indicating descent from Group X or Group Y.
Well, cha-chi, then your claim of "racial purity" is intellectually bankrupt from biological reality standpoint.
quote:Obelisk_18:
Upper egyptians were craniofacially and genetically indistinct from their sudanese counterparts, while Lower Egyptians, descended from migrating upper egyptians (that seems to be the direction the neolithic, as well as civilization, took in egypt, south to north babe ) also mixed with near easterners and europeans, due to its proximity to the two areas. That simple, baby.
LOL. You must be a chick, because no man writes the way you do. Anyway...
Every Keita post that has been cited herein seems to have gone over your head. But before I proceed, I need to know what you mean by "Sudanese" counterparts here, as it pertains to citations posted herein.
quote:Obelisk_18:
You see supercar I actually READ the studies I'm referring to.
This is questionable from what I've read from your posts thus far. But we will soon find out, when you address the questions I put forth.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: right next to the Middle East for Christ sake, and you're telling me there was NO migration from that area?!
The Middle East is right next to Africa for Christ sake, are you telling me there was NO migration from Africa into the Middle-East?
Southern Europe is right next to Africa for Christ sake. Are you saying there was no migration from Africa to Southern-Europe?
Southern Europe is right next to the Middle East for Christ sake. are you saying that there was no migration from the Middle East to Europe.
It's bad form to spell the obvious out like we're talking to children, but the lack of comprehension leaves one with little choice.
Are Rome and Greece' European authenticty predicated on the unreasonable qualifier of demonstrating no migrations into Europe by any non European people?
No.
Is Mesopotamia's "middle eastern" [mid-east itself as a geopolitical reference is *a joke* and certain indication that the person using the term is not thinking for himself but merely parroting his European mind-lord] authenticity predicated on no migrations from Africa, from Europe, from India, from East Asia?
No.
Then why is it necessary to show that there be absolutely no migrations of non-Africans into the Nile Valley in order to discuss Nile Valley civilisation as authentically African?
The answer is, it isn't. Period.
Now i've spelt out in several pedantic paragraphs what should really be a one sentense response:
The question was rhetorical, and a poorly disguised strawman argument, which Supercar correctly identified and dismissed:
quote:Supercar: Who are you referring to, and where is the citation that tells you what you are claiming to be told? Produce this citation quick!
Common sensical; but then, if only common sense was usually well, common sense. The pseudo-science non-starter of "racial purity" is clung onto as the special qualifier for authenticity of African complexes, while for the likes of ancient Greece and ancient complexes in the Levant, the question isn't supposed to even come up. The underlying reason here is obvious, for almost every advocate of such crack-science: There is no way Africans themselves could have been capable of creating authentically African complexes, without "outside" assistance. These advocates are no better than reactionary Eurocentric scholars of the 19th century, and they are not living intellectually in the present, in the face of a mountain of objective data to the contrary confronting them. The advocates may well deny this hidden agenda, but then, go ahead and pose the questions in the manner you just did, and see if you can get a coherent response.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:pseudo-science non-starter of "racial purity" is clung onto as the special qualifier for authenticity of African complexes, while for the likes of ancient Greece and ancient complexes in the Levant, the question isn't supposed to even come up.
Continuing to denote the obvious, in and effort to get people to think...since Nile Valley civilisation pre-dates European civilisation by several thousand years, isn't the logical, objective burdan of proof on the Europeans?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
..no matter how many findings you throw in their faces.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic