posted
Jesus supercar and rasol, since when did I say that Asiatic/European migration was even a factor in the creation of Dynastic Egypt, in fact it was the reason the walls came tumbling down on the long enduring civilization . And X-Ras (Planet Asia)(a black man just like me) agrees with me on Lower Egypt, that it was less racially black than Upper Egypt due to migration, see his posts . Think before you speak, babe. BTW, calling people "babe" is a Dennis Miller type thing.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
He/she hasn't yet, so you know what that means.
Btw, what part of the ATL do you live in? Perhaps I can meet you in person and see if you look smarter than you sound in this forum. LOL Just playing. Seriously though, where do you stay?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright biotches, here's the citation from Keita's study: (the horse's mouth so to speak)
"Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and MIGRATION "
Got ya.
Oh and Djehuti, why do you want to know where I live in the ATL and meet me, you having bad luck with the fifteen year old girls on myspace? Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Alright biotches, here's the citation from Keita's study: (the horse's mouth so to speak)
LOL Looks like we touched a nerve. No need to get frustrated and curse.
quote:"Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and MIGRATION "
Yes, but did he say this migration was from outside of Africa?
quote:Got ya.
Nope, more like your own ignorance has got YOU. And Keita agrees as he said here:
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.
I suggest you read the whole citation and not just the abstract! LOL
quote:Oh and Djehuti, why do you want to know where I live in the ATL and meet me, you having bad luck with the fifteen year old girls on myspace?
How predictable that you get so easily peeved and now try to mock me by questioning by sexuality. A classic immature act, or perhaps you are merely projecting your own frustrations (sexual and otherwise) on to me. Please don't Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and MIGRATION "
I see "northern Africa" and "migration", but what I don't see therein, is this:
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
Do you know the difference between the citation above, and the claim placed in the quotation marks in the request [yet to be responded to] above?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
LOL Looks like we touched a nerve. No need to get frustrated and curse.
Hmm I thought biotches was a cleaner version of "bi**hes". Guess I was wrong.
quote:"Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and MIGRATION "
Yes, but did he say this migration was from outside of Africa?
quote:Got ya.
Nope, more like your own ignorance has got YOU. And Keita agrees as he said here:
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.
I suggest you read the whole citation and not just the abstract! LOL
quote:Oh and Djehuti, why do you want to know where I live in the ATL and meet me, you having bad luck with the fifteen year old girls on myspace?
How predictable that you get so easily peeved and now try to mock me by questioning by sexuality. A classic immature act, or perhaps you are merely projecting your own frustrations (sexual and otherwise) on to me. Please don't
Hmm I thought biotches was a cleaner version of "bi**hes". Guess I was wrong.
Obelisk_18, how about being a man and addressing requests made of you; if you don't have answers, simply say so; all else, will not be tolerated, I can assure that.
So are you able to back up an earlier claim of yours, which was placed in the following request?...
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Looks like we touched a nerve. No need to get frustrated and curse. LOL
Hmm I thought biotches was a cleaner version of "bi**hes". Guess I was wrong.
quote:Yes, but did he say this migration was from outside of Africa? LOL
Nah, he said it was from Endor .
quote:Nope, more like your own ignorance has got YOU.
Maybe your lack of reading comprehension, eh?
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.
quote:How predictable that you get so easily peeved and now try to mock me by questioning by sexuality. A classic immature act, or perhaps you are merely projecting your own frustrations (sexual and otherwise) on to me. Please don't
It was just a joke, cha-chi, lighten up . And me projecting? You're trying so hard to stab me with that verbal machete aren't ya? And I don't cyberstalk, sorry to disappoint you babe . Meeting some insecure pimpel faced snot-nosed adolescent at a Motel Six is not worth being cornered by Jahmal during my weekly shower.
Not denying the Africanity (both cultural and ethnic) of Ancient Egypt here, just making a truthful observation regarding the mixed ethnicity of its northern part. Peace.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Obelisk_18, how about being a man and addressing requests made of you; if you don't have answers, simply say so; all else, will not be tolerated, I can assure that..
So are you able to back up an earlier claim of yours, which was placed in the following request?...
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
It's in the citation that Djehuti displayed to me, and look! I bolded the quote boys and girls!!! I saw that my point on Lower Egyptians was correct by inference, which you seem to be poor at, word of advice, don't take the LSAT .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Obelisk_18, how about being a man and addressing requests made of you; if you don't have answers, simply say so; all else, will not be tolerated, I can assure that..
So are you able to back up an earlier claim of yours, which was placed in the following request?...
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
It's in the citation that Djehuti displayed to me, and look! I bolded the quote boys and girls!!! I saw that my point on Lower Egyptians was correct by inference, which you seem to be poor at, word of advice, don't take the LSAT
I am not sure which side of the planet you came from, but here in the real world, attributing a claim to someone else other than yourself, is called either "citing" the person, or "putting words into that some one else's mouth". Now, you've attributed the following, in quotation marks, to Keita, and hence I requested...
Produce the citation where Keita says the cranial pattern found in Northern Egypt is "due to mostly mixing with Near Easterners".
^^If Keita did indeed say this, why are you having such a hard time producing the said citation? I've gone through everything posted herein, and I have yet to come across such claim from Keita. If this, as you now claim, is your "inference", but at the same time, cannot be backed by a "citation" from Keita, how then can you sit there and claim that you are good at "inferring", while others who are capable of backing up their claims with actual 'citations' from the source, are bad at doing it? LOL.
My advice is, learn to "read" first, before you take it upon yourself to advice others on "LSAT".
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Maybe your lack of reading comprehension, eh?
LMAO Reading comprehension indeed, but it is YOU who lacks it!
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)...
^Of course Keita spoke of the peopling of the Egypt in it's ancient history in general. He never said that influence and migration from the Levant were part of the prehistoric founding population or that of the coastal Northern population whom he distinguishes from the Levant influence!
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.
^LOL The Hyksos didn't not appear until the end of the Middle Kingdom. Sorry but nowhere does he say Levant influence, let alone the Hyksos presence had anything to do with the morphology of the coastal northern population!!
quote:It was just a joke, cha-chi, lighten up . And me projecting? You're trying so hard to stab me with that verbal machete aren't ya? And I don't cyberstalk, sorry to disappoint you babe . Meeting some insecure pimpel faced snot-nosed adolescent at a Motel Six is not worth being cornered by Jahmal during my weekly shower.
LOL Look who needs to lighten up! Just admit that you know not what you talk about. And please don't call me 'babe' unless you are female which you sound to be, and a very annoying one at that. Don't get mad at me cuz can't get a man in your life.
quote:Not denying the Africanity (both cultural and ethnic) of Ancient Egypt here, just making a truthful observation regarding the mixed ethnicity of its northern part. Peace.
Nope. As pointed out above. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now expect the child to make either no response or no response that makes sense and instead get more foolish banter about online sexual encounters or the like (projecting). Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obelisk_18, name one researcher who has actually studied "predynastic Northern" Egyptian remains. Give us the specifics of these studies, because apparently the more recent researchers, like Keita, haven't been able to get their hands on such specimens, as to adjudge morphological trends therein.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well sorry to disappoint you Djehuti but I'm not here to make non-sensical insults. Anyways, Supercar you're right, Keita never studied predynastic northern egyptian remains, he studied the material only from Howells database and series studied by his mentor Larry Angel, and neither of these contained predynastic lower egyptians. only late dynastic "E" series and 9th dynasty Sedment series. Perhaps I misunderstood Keita's "northern coastal" pattern to pertain to pre- dynastic lower egyptians, when in fact it pertained to late dynastic ones, far after the Hyksos and other semitic/european incursions into the area affected the "racial affinities" of the local population. I concede .
Well sorry to disappoint you Djehuti but I'm not here to make non-sensical insults. Anyways, Supercar you're right, Keita never studied predynastic northern egyptian remains, he studied the material only from Howells database and series studied by his mentor Larry Angel, and neither of these contained predynastic lower egyptians. only late dynastic "E" series and 9th dynasty Sedment series. Perhaps I misunderstood Keita's "northern coastal" pattern to pertain to pre- dynastic lower egyptians, when in fact it pertained to late dynastic ones, far after the Hyksos and other semitic/european incursions into the area affected the "racial affinities" of the local population. I concede
Here is something that you might find instructive:
Another example of anti-“Negro” bias is given in Briggs (1955), who reports a writer who calls a “Negro” Neolithic Fayum (northern Egyptian) skull, the remains of a slave; why was it not the skull of a native free Fayumian?
The negative bias is also evident in the writings of Nott and Gliddon (1854), who clearly noted an iconographic distinction between the average Egyptian and European (even Greek) phenotype. Polygenists Nott and Gliddon use the term “Negroid” repeatedly to describe the early Old Kingdom Egyptians but take great effort to indicate that these Negroids have no relationship to “true Negroes,” which to them were a very restricted taxon with a single, monotypic member and distinct origin. - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
I suggest you read Frank L. Williams et al.'s Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation, 2005. There are notable variations within specimens from a single geographical location, which is why people like Keita speak in terms of "trends"...
We argue that Fordisc 2.0, encapsulating the major skeletal markers and statistical techniques in forensic anthropology, offers little information with regard to the biological affinity of Meroitic Nubians. Given the claims of the program, we predicted that the Nubian population would cluster as a single entity and that the cluster would reflect an affinity to Late Period Dynastic Egyptians or possibly to other African continental populations.
The program failed both tests. We suggest that skeletal specimens or samples cannot be accurately classified by geography or by racial affinity because of
(1) the wide variation in crania of the known series that crosscuts geographic populations (polymorphism),
(2)the clinal pattern of human variation,
(3)cultural and environmental factors. Even a presumably homogeneous population such as the Meroitic Nubians show extensive variation that **preclude its classification as a geographical group**
^by Frank L. Williams et al., 2005.
As I have pointed out, even the Upper Egyptian crania were by no means homogenous in phenotype, but when many of these researchers are studying crania, they tend to look for trends by way of frequency of certain "traits", and more often than not, these include "stereotyped" features. I've already demonstrated why Brace described "Somali" crania as having a "hint" of sub-Saharan, when we in fact know, that Somalis are "sub-Saharan" Africans, LOL.
These frequency of "stereotyped" traits in "Upper Egyptian" crania outnumbered the ones in the northern Egypt, which is why it is claimed that there are distinct "trends" in the pooled samples. This doesn't mean that such traits didn't exist in the northern Egyptian samples, but just that, not as much as those in the more southern samples. Hence, it is no surprise that we come across claims like...
The Nagada and Kerma series are so similar that they are barely indistinguishable in the territorial maps; they subsume the first dynasty series from Abydos. The Sedment and “E” series are the most distinct of the Nile Valley series. The European series stands in notable isolation by centroid score from the African series - Keita, Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa.
or even...
The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
Similarly, you'll find cranio-metric trends in the Palestinian samples that Keita studied, interesting, just as Brace's study of ancient and modern European crania was revealing.
I suspect, given references provided by Keita [as the example I just provided], that some past researchers proclaimed to have studied predynastic Northern Egyptian crania, but the question is, whatever then happened to these specimens?
Ps - Ancient Egyptian artists [and classical Greek scholars], who were apparently alive when they undertook these projects, have left us vivid images of what their populations looked like, as exemplified in the aforementioned figurines, yet STILL there are people out there, who attempt to make them [ancient Egyptians] out to be "mysterious" beings.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, thank you super, yes I have read the study "Forensic Misclassification of Nubian crania" which really proves how scientifically futile the term "race" is, because all of the world's phenotypical diversity is contained (because it originated) within my race. It seems we're on good terms now, supercar .
P.S. I hope when you say people refer to "mysterious being" I hope you're not talking about crackpots who think aliens built the pyramids .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
P.S. I hope when you say people refer to "mysterious being" I hope you're not talking about crackpots who think aliens built the pyramids
Actually, I meant people who try to use non-starter issues of "racial purity" or 'migration' to the Nile Valley, as a qualifier of the 'authenticity' of both the biological and cultural base of the Nile Valley populations as "Africans". Doing so, is an attempt to "mystify" an issue that doesn't need to be, based on examination of the abundant available objective material.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And one more question, supercar. Don't you find it strange that the Late Dynastic Gizeh "E" series, clusters with either europeans or west africans depending on the method? Should I take this to indicate a mixed population in this sample, which is not all unreasonable given the known non african immigrations (the Hyksos, of course) that had occured by then. Or what?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, because during the Late Dyanstic period is when Greek,Carian,Phonecian and Syrians began to settle in Giza. Most of these populations were welcomed by the pharaoh Amasis around the 26th dyansty.
Herodotus even mentions places in Giza known as the Tyrian wall and Carian camp.
Most of these immigrants came into northern Egypt intermarrying with local women. Even some parts of Middle Egypt already had foreign settlements around this time period.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And one more question, supercar. Don't you find it strange that the Late Dynastic Gizeh "E" series, clusters with either europeans or west africans depending on the method?
We've gone over the limitations of Giza E series before...
Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.
Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.
The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: No, because during the Late Dyanstic period is when Greek,Carian,Phonecian and Syrians began to settle in Giza. Most of these populations were welcomed by the pharaoh Amasis around the 26th dyansty.
Herodotus even mentions places in Giza known as the Tyrian wall and Carian camp.
Most of these immigrants came into northern Egypt intermarrying with local women. Even some parts of Middle Egypt already had foreign settlements around this time period.
Ah, the great mongrelization of Egypt, it would the reason for the downfall of the great civilization. Don't mean to sound like Chancellor Williams here, but it's the truth . Egypt had to turn back on its traditional attitude of xenophobia.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I wouldn't go that far, however one of the many perverted ideas regarding Europe is that somehow mixture of non-african(?) Egyptians with the dreaded 'negroids' brought the civlisation down.
It is difficult to fathom that even a racist scholar can "honestly" maintain this self-delusion... given that the historical record makes it clear that the invasion of native Nile Valley civilisation by Asiatic and finally Europeans - Syrian, Arab, Roman and Greek literally brought and end to dynastic Kemet.
The Arabs, like Romans and Greeks could not continue ie - develop - Egyptian civilisation for the same reason that couldn not do so in "Nubia".
European and SouthWest Asians are the product finally of a fundamentally different - almost diametrically opposed set of cultural values.
Nile Valley civilisation was African, *not Eurasian*.
The conquest of the Nile Valley by Europe and Asia and the destruction of "Ancient Egypt and Nubia" - are one and the same phenomenon.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
And again, the Hyksos appeared in Egypt during the 2nd Intermediate period which took place after the Middle Kingdom! So Hyksos have nothing to do with Giza of the early Old Kingdom which built the Pyramids.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point Rasol, on the contrary it seems there had to be a "southern people to reanimate Egypt" as Petrie put it, to get the country rolling again . And do you know that there were so many asiatics imported as slaves that the egyptian name for them "Aamu" became synonymous with "slave" during the Middle Kingdom?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Thousands of years later - Slav - and ethnic reference to certain European peoples - Russians, Poles, and some Greeks - essentially equivelant to Bantu in and African context, became synonymous with forced servitude - ie slavery.
This is why I laugh when Eurocentrics try to make slave synomous with Black Africans.
It's a European word for a European people captured and forced into 'slavery' principally by other Europeans, but also by East Asians [mongols], SouthWest Asians [Arabs] and Africans [moors]. And the similarity and indeed common history of the two terms is still irksome to some slavic people.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Good point Rasol, on the contrary it seems there had to be a "southern people to reanimate Egypt" as Petrie put it, to get the country rolling again . And do you know that there were so many asiatics imported as slaves that the egyptian name for them "Aamu" became synonymous with "slave" during the Middle Kingdom?
Even though most slaves in Egypt were Asiatics, it must be understood that the slave population in Egypt was not very great since Egypt was not a society dependent on slaves, unlike the Greeks.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:^ I wouldn't go that far, however one of the many perverted ideas regarding Europe is that somehow mixture of non-african(?) Egyptians with the dreaded 'negroids' brought the civlisation down.
It is difficult to fathom that even a racist scholar can "honestly" maintain this self-delusion... given that the historical record makes it clear that the invasion of native Nile Valley civilisation by Asiatic and finally Europeans - Syrian, Arab, Roman and Greek literally brought and end to dynastic Kemet.
The Arabs, like Romans and Greeks could not continue ie - develop - Egyptian civilisation for the same reason that couldn not do so in "Nubia".
European and SouthWest Asians are the product finally of a fundamentally different - almost diametrically opposed set of cultural values.
Nile Valley civilisation was African, *not Eurasian*.
The conquest of the Nile Valley by Europe and Asia and the destruction of "Ancient Egypt and Nubia" - are one and the same phenomenon
I have to disagree with the following assertion that all foreigners brought down ancient Egyptian civlization. Many foreigners simply assimilated ancient Egyptian culture in their own. This was the case with the Persians and Greeks who did very little to alter the ancient Egyptian culture.
Only untill Roman occupation of Egypt do we see a dramatic change with limitation upon the priesthood and heavy taxiation.
When the Arabs arrived in Egypt in 640 A.D. only vestiages of ancient Egyptian culture continued to exist mainly within the peasanty much untill the preasant day. Egypt was then predominately Christians[according to most historians] and under the burden of opression of the Byzantine. Not much resistance was put up by the local Egyptian population and the Arabs then became the rulers of Egypt from Mecca by the Islamic caliph.
Just to note that only about 20,000 Arabs in all came with Amr Ibn Alas' and settled into Al Fustat located not far from modern Cairo. Even within Fustat the local language continued to be spoken untill it was gradually replaced around the 700's A.D.
During the Dyanstic era ancient Egyptians themselves had a tedency to bring captives of war and assimilate them into their soceity. Foreigners came and settled as merchants,economic immigrants and mercenaries. We see this with the case of the Libyans of the 21st and 22nd dyansties.
In the Egyptology community there is still debate about wheather the Hykos either came through peaceful immigration or by forceful invasion.
Obelix said:
quote:Ah, the great mongrelization of Egypt, it would the reason for the downfall of the great civilization. Don't mean to sound like Chancellor Williams here, but it's the truth. Egypt had to turn back on its traditional attitude of xenophobia
People who believe in this hypothesis have to provide documented evidence that such events caused the downfall of ancient Egypt.
Other factors were probably a more important fact in the decline of ancient Egypt. Most foreigners that came into Egypt usually assimilating into the fabric of ancient Egyptian without much disruption.
Most of the attitudes towards foreigners come primarily from the elites in ancient Egyptian soceity. We don't really know much of how the commoner felt towards foreigners or if they carried the same prejustices.
During the Greco-Roman era we do have instances of hostilities between Greek and Egyptians but also cases of intermarriage as seen by the double Greek and Egyptian names in families.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I suspect, given references provided by Keita [as the example I just provided], that some past researchers proclaimed to have studied predynastic Northern Egyptian crania, but the question is, whatever then happened to these specimens?
Don't know the credibility of the basis on which it was made, but I found this piece, while not entirely new to me in terms of the "scarcity" of specimens from the lowermost Nile Valley regions, which talks of "availability" nonetheless...
Analysis of Skeletal Remains, Lower Egypt
Burials containing preserved bodies have been found in a number of Lower Egyptian sites, but these have not been analysed. Analysis of the human remains would give vital information about the physical characteristics of the Neolithic Egyptians of Lower Egypt, together with details about health, medical details, and lifestyle. It is possible that analysis could also result in information about the genetic relationship of Lower Egyptian communities with Near Eastern, Upper Egyptian and other populations. Again, this has been relegated to a low priority position due to the fragmentary nature of the remains surviving in museums, and the fact that provenances have often been poorly recorded, or have become jumbled in storage The Source
^^Goes back to the question I posed, with regards to "proclamations" suggestive of cranial studies on "pre-dynastic" Lower Egypt crania.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
And one more question, supercar. Don't you find it strange that the Late Dynastic Gizeh "E" series, clusters with either europeans or west africans depending on the method? Should I take this to indicate a mixed population in this sample, which is not all unreasonable given the known non african immigrations (the Hyksos, of course) that had occured by then. Or what?
Ausar and Rasol's responses to this were on target. And yes, it reflects the notion that foreign groups were "mixed" with the in situ population of the Nile Valley.
Now, given that "sheep" domestication, along with some material items found in the Nile Valley, it has been hypothesized that southwest Asian groups had made their way into the Lower Nile Valley in the pre-dynastic period. Not unreasonable, right? However, I get the impression at times, from commentary along those lines, that "mass" movement of populations from the said region into the Nile had occurred, perhaps to the point of invoking the idea that these elements may have been dominant in that region, during the early 'wholesale' farming era in the lower Nile valley region. In this respect, Keita raised an interesting issue of linguistics.
If we were to assume any potential "mass" movement of populations from southwest Asia, wouldn't this then have involved flow of language from the same region? One would assume so. Could these have then been either well established or fully developed "Near Eastern" versions of Afrasan, or else, proto-Afrasan? Well, the former would imply a relatively well established "Near Eastern" group, while the latter would imply relatively new groups in southwest Asia. Naturally, the latter scenario would likely involve more back flow of African specific mrca lineages, than the former scenario. Now, going back to the issue of language; the former would reasonably imply some loan words for various 'imports' [both organic and material] from southwest Asia, say for example, domesticates involving animals such as "sheep", given their already well-established "Semitic" languages. If a loan word was perhaps used at the time of import, then is it safe to assume the loan words were eventually lost? Could such be possible across the board for all loan words for imports? This would imply language replacement of any such 'dominant' group; potentially language from inner Africa, i.e. a well-established Egyptic language? Another matter to be viewed herein, is the point that socio-economic development in the Upper Nile Valley was autonomous from the Lowermost Nile Valley, even if there were potentially some shared traits from common 'origins' or through contact between inhabitants of the region, of which we do have records.
Some of the questions raised above, may be answered shortly: relevant reading from Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005:
“Later there is some movement into Africa after the domestication of plants and Ovacaprines, which happened in the Near East nearly 2000 years before it occurred in Egypt (Hassan 1988, Wetterstrom 1993). Early Neolithic levels in northern Egypt contain the Levantine domesticates, and show some influence in material culture as well (Kobusiewicz 1992). Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).
This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000). (Also some of those emigrating may have been carrying Haplotype V, descendents of earlier migrants from the Nile valley, given the postulated “Mesolithic” time of the M35 lineage emigration). It is more probable that the current VII and VIII frequencies, greatest in northern Egypt, reflect in the main (but not solely) movements during the Islamic period (Nebel et al. 2002), when some deliberate settlement of Arab tribes was done in Africa, and the effects of polygamy. There must also have been some impact of Near Easterners who settled in the delta at various times in ancient Egypt (Gardiner 1961). More recent movements, in the last two centuries, must not be forgotten in this assessment.
Hypotheses that bring Afroasiatic from Asia or Europe with agriculture are not parsimonious (Ehret, personal communication). The Nostratic hypothesis that proffers this view has largely been modified and abandoned; most Nostraticists now see Afroasiatic as a sister of Nostratic and not a daughter (Ruhlen 1991). The common parent to these would reach back into a time not generally believed to be validly accessible to standard linguistic methods (Nichols 1997), although there is dissent on this point.
The distribution and high prevalence of Haplotype V (and less so of XI, Nile Valley primarily), and Afroasiatic speakers in Africa correspond with geography of the Horn-supra-Saharan arc. This is suggestive. The spread of the language phylum and genes may illustrate a case of kin-structured migration (Fix 1999), with founder-effect in some instances (e.g., high frequency of V in Moroccan Berbers). In the southern Nile valley V (and XI) might have been established with early Afroasiatic speakers, whose reconstructed vocabulary on available evidence suggests that they were hunters and intensive plant users, not food produces (see Ehret, 1988, 2000, for a discussion of cultural reconstruction from language, and Ehret 1984).”
To be continued!
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Did the Greeks or the Romans bring Christianity to Egypt?
No, Christianity was introduced to Egypt by the apostle Mark and his followers. The Greeks and Romans merely reinforced Christianity in Egypt.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Continued! Keita and Boyce, on the peopling of the Nile Valley…
“Archeological data, or the absence of it, have been interpreted as suggesting a population hiatus in the settlement of the Nile Valley between Epipaleolithic and the Neolithic/predynastic, but this apparent lack could be due to material now being covered over by the Nile (see Connor and Marks 1986, Midant-Reynes 2000, for a discussion). Analogous to events in the Atacama Desert in Chile (Nunez et al. 2002), a moister more inhabitable eastern Sahara gained more human population in the late Pleistocene-early Holocene (Wendorf and Schild 1980, Hassan 1988, Wndorf and Schild 2001). If the hiatus was real then perhaps many Nile populations became Saharan.
Later, stimulated by mid-Holocene droughts, migration from the Sahara contributed population to the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988, Kobusiewicz 1992, Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001); the predynastic of upper Egypt and later Neolithic in lower Egypt show clear Saharan affinities. A striking increase e of pastoralists’ hearths are found in the Nile valley dating to between 5000-4000 BCE (Hassan 1988). Saharan Nilo-Saharan speakers may have been initial domesticators of African cattle found in the Sahara (see Ehret 2000, Wendorf et. Al. 1987). Hence there was a Saharan “Neolithic” with evidence for domesticated cattle before they appear in the Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 2001). If modern data can be used, there is no reason to think that the peoples drawn into the Sahara in the earlier periods were likely to have been biologically or linguistically uniform.
…A dynamic diachronic interaction consisting of the fusion, fissioning, and perhaps “extinction” of populations, with a decrease in overall numbers as the environment eroded, can easily be envisioned in the heterogenous landscape of the eastern Saharan expanse, with its oases and Wadis, that formed a reticulated pattern of habitats. This fragile and changing region with the Nile Valley in the early to mid-Holocene can be further envisioned as holding a population whose subdivisions maintained some distinctiveness, but did exchange genes. Groups would have been distributed in settlements based on resources, but likely had contacts based on artifact variation (Wendorf and Schild 2001). Similar pottery can be found over extensive areas. Transhumance between the Nile valley and the Sahara would have provided east-west contact, even before the later migration largely emptied parts of the eastern Sahara. Early speakers of Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic apparently interacted based on the evidence of loan words (Ehret, personal communication). Nilo-Saharan’s current range is roughly congruent with the so-called Saharo-Sudanese or Aqualithic culture associated with the less arid period (Wendorf and Schild 1980), and therefore cannot be seen as intrusive. Its speakers are found from the Nile to the Niger rivers in the Sahara and Sahel, and south into Kenya. The eastern Sahara was likely a micro--evolutionary processor and pump of populations, who may have developed various specific sociocultural (and linguistic) identities, but were genealogically “mixed” in terms of origins.
These identities may have further crystallized on the Nile, or fused with those of resident populations that were already differentiated. The genetic profile of the Nile Valley via the fusion of the Saharans and the indigenous peoples were likely established in the main long before the Middle Kingdom…
…Hoffman (1982) noted cattle burials in Hierakonpolis, the most important of predynastic upper Egyptian cities in the later predynastic. This custom might reflect Nubian cultural impact, a common cultural background, or the presence of Nubians.
There was some cultural and economic bases for all levels of social intercourse, as well as geographical proximity. There was some shared iconography in the kingdoms that emerged in Nubia and upper Egypt around 3300 BCE (Williams 1986). Although disputed, there is evidence that Nubia may have even militarily engaged upper Egypt before Dynasty I, and contributed leadership in the unification of Egypt (Williams 1986). The point of reviewing these data is to illustrate that evidence suggests a basis for social interaction, and gene exchange.
There is a caveat for Lower Egypt. If Neolithic/predynastic northern Egyptian populations were characterized at one time by higher frequencies of VII and VIII (from Near Eastern migration), then immigration from Saharan souces could have brought more V and XI in the later northern Neolithic. It should further be noted that the ancient Egyptians interpreted their unifying king, Narmer (either the last of Dynasty 0, or the first Dynasty I), as having been upper Egyptian and moving from south to north with victorious armies (Gardiner 1961, Wilkinson 1999). However, this may only be the heraldic “fixation” of an achieved political and cultural status quo (Hassan 1988), with little or no actual troup/population movements. Nevertheless, it is upper Egyptian (predynastic) culture that comes to dominate the country and emerges as the basis of dynastic cilization. Northern graves over the latter part of the predynastic do become like those in the south (see Bard 1994); some emigration to the north may have occurred - of people as well as ideas.
Interestingly, there is evidence from skeletal biology that upper Egypt in large towns at least, was possibly becoming more diverse over time due to immigration from northerners, as the sociocultural unity proceeded during the predynastic, at least in some major centers (Keita 1992, 1996). This could indicate that the south had been impacted by northerners with Haplotypes V, VII, and VIII, thus altering southern populations with higher than now observed levels of IV and XI, if the craniometric data indicate a general phenomenon, which is not likely. The recoverable graves associated with major towns are not likely reflective of the entire population. It is important to remember that population growth in Egypt was ongoing, and any hypothesis must be tempered with this consideration.
Dynasty I brought the political conquest (and cultural extirpation?) of the A-Group Nubian kingdom Ta Seti by (ca. 3000 BC) Egyptian Kings (Wilkinson 1999). Lower Nubia seems to have become largely “depopulated,” based on archeological evidence, but this more likely means that Nubians were partially bioculturally assimilated into southern Egypt. Lower Nubia had a much smaller population than Egypt, which is important to consider in writing of the historical biology of the population. It is important to note that Ta Seti (of Ta Sti, Ta Sety) was the name of the southernmost nome (district) of upper Egypt recorded in later times (Gardiner 1961), which perhaps indicates that the older Nubia was not forgotten/obliterated to historical memory.
Depending on how “Nubia” is conceptualized, the early kingdom seems to have more or less become absorbed politically into Egypt. Egypt continued activities in Nubia in later Dynasty I (Wilkinson 1999, Emery 1961).”
Some of the questions raised above, may be answered shortly: relevant reading from Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005:
“Later there is some movement into Africa after the domestication of plants and Ovacaprines, which happened in the Near East nearly 2000 years before it occurred in Egypt (Hassan 1988, Wetterstrom 1993). Early Neolithic levels in northern Egypt contain the Levantine domesticates, and show some influence in material culture as well (Kobusiewicz 1992). Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).
This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000).
(Also some of those emigrating may have been carrying Haplotype V, descendents of earlier migrants from the Nile valley, given the postulated “Mesolithic” time of the M35 lineage emigration). It is more probable that the current VII and VIII frequencies, greatest in northern Egypt, reflect in the main (but not solely) movements during the Islamic period (Nebel et al. 2002), when some deliberate settlement of Arab tribes was done in Africa, and the effects of polygamy. There must also have been some impact of Near Easterners who settled in the delta at various times in ancient Egypt (Gardiner 1961). More recent movements, in the last two centuries, must not be forgotten in this assessment.
It may be worth putting "Neolithicization" in Lower Egypt into context. The beginnings of "Neolithic" economy in the Levantine context [and its connected Eurasian "Neolithic"], is to be marked by the flow of new "lithics"/stone tools from north Africa via the Nile Valley into the Levant (see for example, Bar Yosef 1987; and Ehret 2004) in addition to any new lithic technology in that part of the world. "Neolithic" in the Nile valley, as placed in the above Keita/Boyce piece, apparently needs to be viewed in a different context from that of the Levant. "Neolithic" with respect to the Nile Valley, would mark an economy that comes with new tooling with respect to the lower Nile valley, but from the aforementioned piece...
There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000). - Keita, Boyce.
^^so, a Neolithic with a "different stripe", so to speak, from the earlier Levantine counterpart.
And yes, understanding all this and other settlement issues, will help us understand cranio-metric pattern along the Lower Nile Valley, and what Keita means, when he uses terms like "coastal northern pattern", "tropical", "Saharo-tropical" and so forth.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I noticed that Keita says that "southern" crania seem to grow closer to the "northern" (whatever that looked like) pattern with the passage of time. Isn't it also possible that northern Egyptians in turn became more "southern" in appearance than their ancestors? I would certainly expect so, given that Kemet was founded by southern Egyptians conquering northern Egyptians (which has never sat well with assertions that Egyptian civilization was founded by "Caucasoid" invaders).
Posts: 7087 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I noticed that Keita says that "southern" crania seem to grow closer to the "northern" (whatever that looked like) pattern with the passage of time. Isn't it also possible that northern Egyptians in turn became more "southern" in appearance than their ancestors? I would certainly expect so, given that Kemet was founded by southern Egyptians conquering northern Egyptians (which has never sat well with assertions that Egyptian civilization was founded by "Caucasoid" invaders).
No disrespect, but it seems that you totally zone out the detailed information of the thread, which you may not like to hear, and only capture the ones that you do. The early dynastic northern crania were studied; and this had the "Northern coastal pattern". This pattern had relatively more diverse trends than that present in pre-dynastic "southern" Nile Valley samples. This is how the said researchers were able to hypothesize that some 'change' in this pattern of the "southern crania" by the early dynastic period, could have been the result of intensified interactions of southern complexes with the more northern Nile Valley complexes. The early "northern" dynastic crania had both "generalized [with respect to North Africa and "Near East"] " and "Saharo-tropical African" trends. The southern predyanstic trends were mainly consistent with "Saharo-tropical African" patterns. From a phenotypic standpoint, trends usually entail 'stereotypes' in morphology, which is why you hear claims such as "north African caucasian" skull of Tut, or that "Somali crania" is "diluted" when it comes to "sub-Saharan". You have to be able to understand what is being measured and how it is, to think out of the box with cranio-metric analysis.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The early dynastic northern crania were studied; and this had the "Northern coastal pattern". This pattern had relatively more diverse trends than that present in pre-dynastic "southern" Nile Valley samples. This is how the said researchers were able to hypothesize that some 'change' in this pattern of the "southern crania" by the early dynastic period, could have been the result of intensified interactions of southern complexes with the more northern Nile Valley complexes. The early "northern" dynastic crania had both "generalized [with respect to North Africa and "Near East"] " and "Saharo-tropical African" trends. The southern predyanstic trends were mainly consistent with "Saharo-tropical African" patterns.
quote:The early dynastic northern crania were studied; and this had the "Northern coastal pattern". This pattern had relatively more diverse trends than that present in pre-dynastic "southern" Nile Valley samples. This is how the said researchers were able to hypothesize that some 'change' in this pattern of the "southern crania" by the early dynastic period, could have been the result of intensified interactions of southern complexes with the more northern Nile Valley complexes. The early "northern" dynastic crania had both "generalized [with respect to North Africa and "Near East"] " and "Saharo-tropical African" trends. The southern predyanstic trends were mainly consistent with "Saharo-tropical African" patterns.
^So it's basically educated guess?
...with respect to any assessments of the 'original' pattern(s) of the Delta and Lower predynastic Egyptian cranio-morphology?, yes!
Cranio-metry can be relatively ambiguous, especially given no skin attachment, because its features can be common in many places based gene flow, parallel evolution in response to various environments, or both.
Genetics, archeology, cultural anthropology, and physical anthropology lend strong support to the idea of the Nile Valley regions being initially populated by indigenous groups, i.e. Africans, before any return of back-migrants.
BTW, the southern dynastic royal crania were still tilted towards 'Saharo-tropical' African patterns, but 'some' change in its diversity has been noted by Keita.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Well, for one, as an example, the Lachish crania proved to display "intermediate" patterns, when Keita run them through several multivariate analysis. Craniomorphometic traits however, can change over time in a region; so to make a reasonably objective comparison, it ultimately depends on time, geographical space and what populations are analyzed. For instance, knowing the time frame of the Lachish specimens, Keita knew similarities that some of the Lachish crania had with say, the Romano-British series, must have been a matter of evolutionary coincidence, as opposed to these implicating either the British or Roman elements in the Lachish population; he notes that the neither British or the Romans were in that Levantine region in the time frame in question.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. And X-Ras (Planet Asia)(a black man just like me) agrees with me on Lower Egypt, that it was less racially black than Upper Egypt due to migration, see his posts ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Think before you speak, babe. BTW, calling people "babe" is a Dennis Miller type thing.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
even dennis miller thought that reply stunk. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Couldn't agree more. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic