quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Indeed and I am surprised (not really) that a proponent of the 'No Race/Racist' school like Jaime would imply a racial model of admixture.
Nice try. Population admixture does not require races. Clinal variation can occur ans spread through out a wide area. Then when mass migrations occur from two different areas within that range there will be admixture. If you walked from Sudan to Anatolia you would ahve seen gradual change, but at the same time you would see populations that were distinctively different from their neighbors due to migration from another region of that overall clinal variation.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Afrocentrist claims of me and my chronies is just another form of racism, as with Dienekes and his Medicentrist racism, and Kemp with his Aryanism. The differences between us are superfluous distractions.I fully agree with you
Frank Sweet exposed himself with his comment that Black Africans were not originally Black [during the time in which they would have migrated into Eurasia]. Which is still a distinct possibility that they were not as dark as they are now
This is comment made based on pure bias and wishfull thinking flying in the face of genetic and anthropological evidence to the contrary, and defended out of "pure" anti-Kemetic ideological necessity. Hardly. There is no genetic evidence that proves the skin color of the ancients
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE] Population admixture does not require races. Clinal variation can occur ans spread through out a wide area. Then when mass migrations occur from two different areas within that range there will be admixture. If you walked from Sudan to Anatolia you would ahve seen gradual change, but at the same time you would see populations that were distinctively different from their neighbors due to migration from another region of that overall clinal variation.[/b]
Evergreen Writes:
I agree. But this rule applies to every human on earth. All humans are 'mixed' in this sense. There is no evidence of large-scale extra African admixture to the African populations prior to the LBA. In addition there is no evidence that the phenetic variation we see in modern AA is due primarily to extra-African admixture. Hence to my original position - the variation seen in AE and within modern AA populations is primarly a result of intra-African migrations and admixture.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: I agree. But this rule applies to every human on earth. All humans are 'mixed' in this sense. To a degree they are. The more recent the admixture and the more drastic the distance of the migration without allowance for clinal change the stronger the admixture of contrasting variations will be There is no evidence of large-scale extra African admixture to the African populations prior to the LBA. Plenty of evidence of Levantine to North African crosspollination of populations In addition there is no evidence that the phenetic variation we see in modern AA is due primarily to extra-African admixture. Yes there is and I provided the link for it. Hence to my original position - the variation seen in AE and within modern AA populations is primarly a result of intra-African migrations and admixture. Which is a falsehood. Trying to equate African Americans with Ancient Egyptians is exactly the type of coattailing I talk about as the variation in each population was caused by very different circumstances
quote:Using Europeans is a strawman. Use Levantine crania of the period and compare it to northern Egyptian crania and tell me how different they are.
Levant people and Europeans are both Caucasoids; Levantines are simply darker-skinned. It wouldn't really matter.
Last I recall Ethiopans and ancient Egyptians were being erroneously classified as Caucasoids as well. Your point?
These two mummies are from the same history period Maiherpra Tuthmosis Like I said, there was variety in the land.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: The proto-neolithic (food producing) Levantine populations seemed to have affinities with Black Africans. Any back-migration from this region would need to contextualized within this framework of knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006 Jan 3;103(1):242-7 The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form Brace et al. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa
If you want to go with Brace fine. I actually asked him about some of his findings My question: > OK. I read somewhere that your sampling had been of later egyptians or > something like that. > > I was also curious about this. So Natufians looked more like Sub Saharan > Africans? > > The question of to what degree the Natuf population was African, and to > what degree South West Asian [ie crossbreeding] - may be difficult to > assess, but based on latest study from CL Brace in which Natufians > physically cluster in between NorthEast and West Central Africans, it is > possible that the Natufians were largely African settlers in the Levant > who were slowly absorbed and subsumed by native populations, not to > mention back migrations of Europeans into the South West Asia
I was quoting someone from here
Brace's response: From: <clbrace@umich.edu> Sent: Monday, March 20,:43 PM Subject: Re: Egyptian phenotypes. > Only faintly so. There was a whiff of sub-Saharan African in them, but it > was not very strong. And those Giza Egyptians I measured tell me they are > more European than Middle Eastern. One was clearly a German Neolithic > specimen, and the rest were either French or northern Italian. But I have > other Egyptians that are clearly North African. > The Giza material dates from 2855 BC, and the Naqada Bronze Age dates from > 3000 to 4000 BC. And I have another collection from an oasis in the Fayum > which is about the same time as the Giza material and this clearly ties > with North Africa. >I accept the view of Abdel-Latif Aboul-Elam the director of the Egyptian > Embassy's cultural office in 1989 when he declared that Egyptians are > neither black nor white but Egyptian. And if they did indeed migrate > there, they did not come from very far away. Morphologically they tie in > with the people from North Africa and the Arabian peninsula who have > effectively been there since the Pleistocene. > > The British brought Indians to South Africa, not because they were > darker and could stand the sun better -- that after all is south of the > tropics -- but because as agricultural people they were used to the kind of > work that the British wanted them to do and the natives of South Africa had > no experience with that kind of work. > > The inhabitants of India south of the Tropic of Cancer are very dark > because they live in the tropics just north of the equator and not because > of their African ancestry. The ones north of the Tropic of Cancer are > lighter in color, not because of recent immigration but because there is > just less selection for dark skin there. I have samples all the way from > Calcutta in the north to Madras and the Veddas of Sri Lanka, and there is > no difference between their craniofacial features in spite of a major > difference in skin color. The so-called Aryan invasion was more a cultural > phenomenon than an actual change in population. And the Moghul (really > Mongol) control was an imposition by a very small ruling class and not a > population change to any measurable degree.
Whoa, I hate to say this but this is a damper in Afrocentricity...so is Brace saying Egyptians weren't black now?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Levant people and Europeans are both Caucasoids
Not according to CL Brace, who says that neolithic Levantines had closer affinites to Africans than to modern Europeans.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
First of all, please do not post your replies into my posts. You give a false representation that may lead to a misunderstanding. There is no need to misrepresent. You don’t have to ‘cheat me to beat me’.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE] I agree. But this rule applies to every human on earth. All humans are 'mixed' in this sense.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]To a degree they are. The more recent the admixture and the more drastic the distance of the migration without allowance for clinal change the stronger the admixture of contrasting variations will be
Evergreen Writes:
Ok, and?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]There is no evidence of large-scale extra African admixture to the African populations prior to the LBA.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]Plenty of evidence of Levantine to North African crosspollination of populations
Evergreen Writes:
Please post said evidence and we can discuss. Thus far you have only posted an unsubstantiated theory.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]In addition there is no evidence that the phenetic variation we see in modern AA is due primarily to extra-African admixture.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]Yes there is and I provided the link for it.
Evergreen Writes:
You do understand the difference between PHENETIC and PHYLOGENETIC....right?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]Hence to my original position - the variation seen in AE and within modern AA populations is primarly a result of intra-African migrations and admixture.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]Which is a falsehood. Trying to equate African Americans with Ancient Egyptians is exactly the type of coattailing I talk about as the variation in each population was caused by very different circumstances
Evergreen Writes:
'Coattailing'....you are so silly.
At any rate, until you provide definitive evidence that the variation in the two populations are not due to the SAME circumstances (i.e., intra-African migrations) you will remain the J.P. Patches of this forum.
quote:There was a whiff of sub-Saharan African in them, but it . And those Giza Egyptians I measured tell me they are > more European than Middle Eastern. One was clearly a German Neolithic . But I have > other Egyptians that are clearly North African. > The Giza material dates from 2855 BC, and the Naqada Bronze Age dates from > 3000 to 4000 BC. And I have another collection from an oasis in the Fayum > which is about the same time as the Giza material and this clearly ties > with North Africa. > I accept the view of Abdel-Latif Aboul-Elam the director of the Egyptian
Why is Brace personally saying things opposite of how his studies are being represented on this board?!?!?!? Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:There was a whiff of sub-Saharan African in them, but it . And those Giza Egyptians I measured tell me they are > more European than Middle Eastern. One was clearly a German Neolithic . But I have > other Egyptians that are clearly North African. > The Giza material dates from 2855 BC, and the Naqada Bronze Age dates from > 3000 to 4000 BC. And I have another collection from an oasis in the Fayum > which is about the same time as the Giza material and this clearly ties > with North Africa. > I accept the view of Abdel-Latif Aboul-Elam the director of the Egyptian
Why is Brace personally saying things opposite of how his studies are being represented on this board?!?!?!?
Evergreen Writes:
You are familiar with Brace's more RECENT study on Natufian and Neolithic European remains :
1) Neolithic and Recent Europeans are distinct
2) Natufians are similar to Sub-Saharan Africans
3) The Natufian Neolithic culture spread to Europe
Hence
4) Some Neolithic Europeans had affinities with modern Sub-Saharan populations
Hence
5) Comparing a pooled sample of some Neolithic European remains to Ancient Egyptians would give results with affinities since the Natufians came out of Africa!
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Key point: NO GENETIC EVIDENCE. Which CONTRADICTS YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT. Don't make me laugh. My whole point is you can't prove it either way. So it contradicts your claims, not mine.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Levant people and Europeans are both Caucasoids
Not according to CL Brace, who says that neolithic Levantines had closer affinites to Africans than to modern Europeans.
If you want to go with Brace fine. I actually asked him about some of his findings My question: > OK. I read somewhere that your sampling had been of later egyptians or > something like that. > > I was also curious about this. So Natufians looked more like Sub Saharan > Africans? > > The question of to what degree the Natuf population was African, and to > what degree South West Asian [ie crossbreeding] - may be difficult to > assess, but based on latest study from CL Brace in which Natufians > physically cluster in between NorthEast and West Central Africans, it is > possible that the Natufians were largely African settlers in the Levant > who were slowly absorbed and subsumed by native populations, not to > mention back migrations of Europeans into the South West Asia
I was quoting someone from here
Brace's response: From: <clbrace@umich.edu> Sent: Monday, March 20,:43 PM Subject: Re: Egyptian phenotypes. > Only faintly so. There was a whiff of sub-Saharan African in them, but it > was not very strong. And those Giza Egyptians I measured tell me they are > more European than Middle Eastern. One was clearly a German Neolithic > specimen, and the rest were either French or northern Italian. But I have > other Egyptians that are clearly North African. > The Giza material dates from 2855 BC, and the Naqada Bronze Age dates from > 3000 to 4000 BC. And I have another collection from an oasis in the Fayum > which is about the same time as the Giza material and this clearly ties > with North Africa. >I accept the view of Abdel-Latif Aboul-Elam the director of the Egyptian > Embassy's cultural office in 1989 when he declared that Egyptians are > neither black nor white but Egyptian. And if they did indeed migrate > there, they did not come from very far away. Morphologically they tie in > with the people from North Africa and the Arabian peninsula who have > effectively been there since the Pleistocene. > > The British brought Indians to South Africa, not because they were > darker and could stand the sun better -- that after all is south of the > tropics -- but because as agricultural people they were used to the kind of > work that the British wanted them to do and the natives of South Africa had > no experience with that kind of work. > > The inhabitants of India south of the Tropic of Cancer are very dark > because they live in the tropics just north of the equator and not because > of their African ancestry. The ones north of the Tropic of Cancer are > lighter in color, not because of recent immigration but because there is > just less selection for dark skin there. I have samples all the way from > Calcutta in the north to Madras and the Veddas of Sri Lanka, and there is > no difference between their craniofacial features in spite of a major > difference in skin color. The so-called Aryan invasion was more a cultural > phenomenon than an actual change in population. And the Moghul (really > Mongol) control was an imposition by a very small ruling class and not a > population change to any measurable degree.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: First of all, please do not post your replies into my posts. You give a false representation that may lead to a misunderstanding. There is no need to misrepresent. You don’t have to ‘cheat me to beat me’. No false representation. If they can't figure out how bolding works they shouldn't read.
Ok, and? And if you have no disagreenet with that then your whole argument is a strawman
Please post said evidence and we can discuss. Thus far you have only posted an unsubstantiated theory. hardly
Yet somehow Dougie M wants to pretend that Northern Egypt was pure African without any Levant influence.
You do understand the difference between PHENETIC and PHYLOGENETIC....right? Phenotype and phylogenetics, yes. And I am talking about the genetics that lead to the different phenotypes
'Coattailing'....you are so silly. If the shoe fits At any rate, until you provide definitive evidence that the variation in the two populations are not due to the SAME circumstances (i.e., intra-African migrations) you will remain the J.P. Patches of this forum. Already did. Not my fault you ignored the link
quote:Why is Brace personally saying things opposite of how his studies are being represented on this board?!?!?!?
lol. for even crediting any post by Jamie/Salassin for even a microsecond, as being anything other than desparate rantings of lying racist-loon, you should slap yourself.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
You are familiar with Brace's more RECENT study on Natufian and Neolithic European remains
Morphologically they tie in with the people from North Africa and the Arabian peninsula who have effectively been there since the Pleistocene.
Evergreen Writes:
The rest of your post is jibberish, which anyone on here can pick apart. But this I want to address. Please point me to the Peer-Reviewed source for this claim. Brace can ASSUME anything, but the scientific method calls for peer-review. In addition, it is not unusual that AE would tie in with Pliestocene North Africans, especially since the Pliestocene runs all the way up to the Dynastic era. The Badarians were North Africans and would fit into this picture. What Brace is using is known as 'double-talk'. Pliestocene North Africans migrated from LGM tropical East Africa as Brace himself knows and has admitted. So tieing Dynastic Africans to other Dynastic Africans tells us nothing. Now if we go back further in time we know that Joel Irish conducted phenetic analysis on early Holocene North East Africans and they clustered with modern Sub-Saharan Africans phenetically. This WAS a peer-reviewed study. In addition most of North Africa and many parts of the Arabian penninsula were depopulated until the early Holocene when there was a repopulation by the predecessors of the Badarians and Natufians. All of this is from peer-reviewed sources unlike Braces COMMENT via a email to you.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Here is an actual peer-reviewed study on Plistocene North Africans.
Evergreen Posts:
The Journal of North African Studies, Vol.10, No.3–4 (September–December 2005)
The Climate-Environment-Society Nexus in Sahara from Prehistoric Times to the Present
NICK BROOKS, ISABELLE CHIAPELLO, SAVINO LERNIA, NICK DRAKE, MICHEL LEGRAND, MOULIN AND JOSEPH
“It is worth noting that the scant palaeo-anthropological evidence (from Uan and Uan Muhuggiag in the central Sahara of Libya) points to sub-Saharan affinities. This fits with more recent human remains from the Egyptian oasis, which indicate similar affinity on the basis of dental analysis. These findings support the of a northwards movement of human populations as they followed the monsoon rains, which strengthened and penetrated further north into the Sahara at the beginning the Holocene. The gap between the beginning of the humid period in the after the last glacial maximum (ca. 15–13 ka) and the appearance of the Holocene occupation sites might be interpreted as a consequence of the time for vegetation and fauna to recolonise hyperarid environments. More cautiously, the first genetic data on Saharan palaeo-populations also a sub-Saharan affinity. Evidence for a southern provenance of the first Saharans might also be seen in from rock art, although the subjective nature of interpretations must be recognised: in the and Acacus depictions figures with what appear to be black African features have been interpreted indicating the possible presence of populations originating in sub-Saharan regions.”
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Morphologically they tie in with the people from North Africa and the Arabian peninsula who have effectively been there since the Pleistocene.
Evergreen Writes:
The rest of your post is jibberish, which anyone on here can pick apart. But this I want to address. Please point me to the Peer-Reviewed source for this claim. Brace can ASSUME anything, but the scientific method calls for peer-review. In addition, it is not unusual that AE would tie in with Pliestocene North Africans, especially since the Pliestocene runs all the way up to the Dynastic era. The Badarians were North Africans and would fit into this picture. What Brace is using is known as 'double-talk'. Pliestocene North Africans migrated from LGM tropical East Africa as Brace himself knows and has admitted. So tieing Dynastic Africans to other Dynastic Africans tells us nothing. Now if we go back further in time we know that Joel Irish conducted phenetic analysis on early Holocene North East Africans and they clustered with modern Sub-Saharan Africans phenetically. This WAS a peer-reviewed study. In addition most of North Africa and many parts of the Arabian penninsula were depopulated until the early Holocene when there was a repopulation by the predecessors of the Badarians and Natufians. All of this is from peer-reviewed sources unlike Braces COMMENT via a email to you.
Ok now don't attack me but are you saying that Brace is playing games with his email? Why would Brace say something in his email that isn't true considering his studies are supported on this board.
In the email he said Egyptians are not black or white. Why did he say this and why are you saying it's gibberish if he is an anthropologist?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only knew it would be a matter of time before this thread 'blew up' so to speak!
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: Levant people and Europeans are both Caucasoids; Levantines are simply darker-skinned. It wouldn't really matter.
T-rex, I'm surprised that even after all the time you've spent in this forum you still subscribe to debunked Eurocentric terms like "caucaoid"!! Even our resident troll is correct that indigenous East Africans were once classified as "caucasoids".
The main point to this thread was expressed by Mystersolver:
In most cases, the morphological descriptions of early southern "Egyptian" crania clearly fall within Broad to Elongated Saharo-tropical African ranges of variation. If treated as an unknown, Egyptian variation has to be judged in the context of the range of early Saharo-tropical African variation (**Broad **to Elongated) and not be analyzed in terms of one abstracted phenotype deemed to be the only "African." In other words, the baseline definition of biological African has to take in the entire range of tropical African variability, including fossil and subfossil data, and not be based on the baised (for whatever reason) misusing of race theorists from the earlier part of this century. - Keita
quote:Posted by the Troll you can't get rid of:
These two mummies are from the same history period Maiherpra Tuthmosis
As there is diversity in other parts of Africa:
These two boys from the same country (Ethioppia) and same time period
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
These two boys from the same country (Ethioppia) and same time period
You bet; there is diversity to this very day, in terms of the so-called "broad" and "elongated" archetypes, all the way from Northeast Africa to Kenya, including Somalia.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:T-rex, I'm surprised that even after all the time you've spent in this forum you still subscribe to debunked Eurocentric terms like "caucaoid"!!
My bad. Still, it doesn't take a genius to infer that the reason maa wants Keita to use a Levantine (as opposed to European) sample is because he wants to see the Ancient Egyptians "Caucasoidized". Well, if Levantines did indeed cluster with Egyptians, that would make them closer to Sudanese/sub-Saharans than to Europeans---thus, Levantines would not be "Caucasoid". Maa, the simple, painful truth of the matter is that Ancient Egyptians, except for a few in the northern periphery, cluster closer to sub-Saharans, and closest to Sudanese, than to people generally called "Caucasoid".
quote:T-rex, I'm surprised that even after all the time you've spent in this forum you still subscribe to debunked Eurocentric terms like "caucaoid"!!
My bad. Still, it doesn't take a genius to infer that the reason maa wants Keita to use a Levantine (as opposed to European) sample is because he wants to see the Ancient Egyptians "Caucasoidized".
The reason anyone wants Keita to do so, is because it is obvious that the said person isn't familiar with the Keita studies in question.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: [QUOTE]Ok now don't attack me but are you saying that Brace is playing games with his email? Why would Brace say something in his email that isn't true considering his studies are supported on this board.
Evergreen Writes:
I would not attack you for simply asking a question.
I am not saying that Braces comments are not true. They are misleading (if they are indeed his comments) and they are not peer-reviewed.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: [QUOTE] Why did he say this and why are you saying it's gibberish if he is an anthropologist?
Evergreen Writes:
I was referring to Jaimes post when I said it was gibberish. The Brace email is misleading.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
> I was also curious about this. So Natufians looked more like Sub Saharan > Africans? > > The question of to what degree the Natuf population was African, and to > what degree South West Asian [ie crossbreeding] - may be difficult to > assess, but based on latest study from CL Brace in which Natufians > physically cluster in between NorthEast and West Central Africans, it is > possible that the Natufians were largely African settlers in the Levant > who were slowly absorbed and subsumed by native populations, not to > mention back migrations of Europeans into the South West Asia
"Only faintly so. There was a whiff of sub-Saharan African in them, but it was not very strong."
Evergreen Posts:
Black Folk Here and There By St. Clair Drake Pg. 155 and 156
"IF THE EARLY DELTA POPULATION WAS NATUFIAN, EVEN CARLETON COON, AN ANTHROPOLOGIST WHOSE RACIST STATEMENTS SOMETIMES EMBARRASSED HIS COLLEAGUES, WOULD CONCEDE A NEGROID TINGE. ON ONE OCCASION HE WROTE OF NATUFIANS THAT 'THE WIDE, LOW VAULTED NOSE, IN COMBINATION WITH PROGNATHISM, GIVES A SOMEWHAT NEGROID CAST TO THE FACE.' BUT HE HASTENED TO CONCLUDE THAT THESE WERE REALLY 'WHITES', THAT 'THESE LATE NATUFIANS REPRESENT A BASICALLY MEDITERRANEAN TYPE WITH MINOR NEGROID AFFINITIES.' THESE SAME PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE CLASSIFIED AS 'NEGROES' IN THE UNITED STATES, WHERE SUCH MINOR NEGROID AFFINITIES ARE ALLWAYS ENOUGH TO TIP THE SCALES....SUCH INCONSISTENCIES HAVE EVOKED CHARGES AGAINST THE PROFESSIONAL TAXONOMISTS RANGING FROM HYPOCRISY TO RACSIM, BY THOSE BLACKS WHO ARE AWARE OF THIER OPERATIONS. THEY SEE A DEFINITE ATTEMPT TO INSIST THAT THE NEOLITHIC INNOVATORS WHO DEVELOPED AGRICULTURE, POTTERY, METTALLURGY, AND WEAVING COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN WHAT WE NOW CALL 'NEGROES'."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And those Giza Egyptians I measured tell me they are > more European than Middle Eastern. One was clearly a German Neolithic > specimen, and the rest were either French or northern Italian. But I have > other Egyptians that are clearly North African.
^1. Brief clarification which I'm 99% percent sure my assumption is right on, does this comment refer to Brace' Late Dynastic Lower Egyptian sample from Giza that he also reviewed in 93?
2. Isn't it extremely misleading to seclude individuals for comparison and assign them to predefined groups such as "Northern Italian", "French" or "German Neolithic"? Is he suggesting that Neolithic Germans, Northern Italians, and French people all somehow found their way into lower Egypt? This study is a good example of that question.. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/forensic.pdf
3. Also, when he says "North African" does he mean North/West or North/East?
quote:I accept the view of Abdel-Latif Aboul-Elam the director of the Egyptian > Embassy's cultural office in 1989 when he declared that Egyptians are > neither black nor white but Egyptian. And if they did indeed migrate > there, they did not come from very far away. Morphologically they tie in > with the people from North Africa and the Arabian peninsula who have > effectively been there since the Pleistocene.
^I'd have to presume that his language is somewhat deceptive or misleading here.. Obviously he's referring to most Modern Egyptians since I've never read anything in his studies that alluded to any apparent close relationships between the AEs and peoples of the Arabian Peninsula. And again, since when was North Africa a single entity, by North Africa does he mean North East/Nile Valley, or Coastal/Arab North Africa?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Black Folk Here and There By St. Clair Drake Pg. 155 and 156
"IF THE EARLY DELTA POPULATION WAS NATUFIAN, EVEN CARLETON COON, AN ANTHROPOLOGIST WHOSE RACIST STATEMENTS SOMETIMES EMBARRASSED HIS COLLEAGUES, WOULD CONCEDE A NEGROID TINGE. ON ONE OCCASION HE WROTE OF NATUFIANS THAT 'THE WIDE, LOW VAULTED NOSE, IN COMBINATION WITH PROGNATHISM, GIVES A SOMEWHAT NEGROID CAST TO THE FACE.' BUT HE HASTENED TO CONCLUDE THAT THESE WERE REALLY 'WHITES', THAT 'THESE LATE NATUFIANS REPRESENT A BASICALLY MEDITERRANEAN TYPE WITH MINOR NEGROID AFFINITIES.' THESE SAME PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE CLASSIFIED AS 'NEGROES' IN THE UNITED STATES, WHERE SUCH MINOR NEGROID AFFINITIES ARE ALLWAYS ENOUGH TO TIP THE SCALES....SUCH INCONSISTENCIES HAVE EVOKED CHARGES AGAINST THE PROFESSIONAL TAXONOMISTS RANGING FROM HYPOCRISY TO RACSIM, BY THOSE BLACKS WHO ARE AWARE OF THIER OPERATIONS. THEY SEE A DEFINITE ATTEMPT TO INSIST THAT THE NEOLITHIC INNOVATORS WHO DEVELOPED AGRICULTURE, POTTERY, METTALLURGY, AND WEAVING COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN WHAT WE NOW CALL 'NEGROES'."
Lest we forget how the Natufians were described before they were crowned as the earliest known agriculturalists...
quote:Originally posted by Calypso:
quote:BONES OF CANNIBALS A PALESTINE RIDDLE Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES. New York Times 1857; Aug 4, 1932; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) pg. 21
Negroid people of 5000 B. C.Unlike Any Modern Race Described by Keith.
ATE BODIES OF ENEMIES Men, Short of Stature, Burned Bones of Dead After Burial, London Session Hears. TEETH OF WOMEN DRAWN Linking relics to Burnt Skeletons from Ur scientist speculate an old cremation custom.
Wireless to NEW YORK TIMES London Aug. 3
Seven or eight thousand years ago in what geologist call modern times a race of negroid cannibals lived In Palestine, burned the bones of their dead after burial, and devoured the bodies of their enemies. Skulls and thighbones of this race were unearthed within the last four years, first at Shukbah near Jerusalem and later in caves at Mount Carmel, and because they puzzled the excavators who found them they received the new name “Natufians.” Today the first authoritative account of them was given by Sir Arthur Keith to the congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences and showed them to be one of the greatest riddles of archaeology. They were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads. They were short of stature 5 feet 3 or 4 inches tall-and their thighs and legs were remarkably strong. While their arms and shoulders were weak. Alone Among prehistoric peoples they had a custom of extracting the two upper central incisor teeth of their women. Jagged holes in the fronts of their skulls indicate that they ate human brains.
Unlike Any present Race.
They may have been ancestors or the Arabs or Semites of biblical times, in Sir Arthur's opinion. They had some facial characteristics like those of the Neolithic or late Stone Age men of Malta and the remoter Aurignacian men of Southern Europe. But whatever the similarities sir Arthur declared, they lived between 5000 and 6000 B. C. and cannot be identified with any race on earth today. In addition to all these riddles, Sir Arthur propounded another linking them unaccountably to ancient Ur of the Chaldees and the prehistoric man of South Africa. From piles of charred and fragmented bones found in Palestine-mostly women's bones- Sir Arthur concluded they did not cremate their dead, but burned them long after burial. "By a strange coincidence," he said. "At the time the burnt remains came to me Leonard Woolley sent me a box of human remains from under the foundations of Ur. These burnt bones from Ur-of about the third dynasty also represented not ordinary cremation-cremation of dead bodies clothed with flesh-but Cremation of dried skeletons. In the remains from Ur women's bones were preponderant. “Two years ago Miss Gertrude Catton-Thompson sent me burned bones from under the foundations of Zimbabwe in Southern Rhodesia. These represented the skulls of two women which had been burned long after the flesh had disappeared from them. Was there once a custom in ancient times of digging up the bones of ancestors and then subjecting them to an ordeal of fire?” Boxes of charred bones from Palestine were on the table while Sir Arthur spoke, together with a dozen curiously shaped reddish skulls that stared across the lecture room. Scientists who listened were startled and bewildered. Miss Dorothy Garrod, British Archaeologist, who had found the remains while working for the British School of Archaeology and the American School of Prehistoric Studies, assured the audience that they were comparatively modern and they were of the Mesolithic period. Natufian remains, it should be remembered, are in no way connected with the more recent discoveries of a new race of fossil men, also in caves, near Mt Carmel. The fossil men, so remarkably different from all others yet found, became extinct in the remotely distant past, while the Natufians may still have been living when the first city-states of Sumeria arose. Sir Arthur based his conclusions today on twenty comparatively complete skulls of eighty-seven found by Miss Garrod.
Cites Features of Race
“Several features stand out quite definitely'' he asserted; first the Natufians were a long-headed people - they had cap-shaped occiputs (the lower back part of the head). Secondly, the dimensions or their heads were greater than in the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Thirdly, their faces were short and wide. Fourthly, they were prognathous (with projecting jaws). Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. Sixthly, their chins were not prominent, but were masked by the fullness of the teeth-bearing parts of the jaw. “The Natufians at Shukbah seem to have practiced cannibalism, for it is only by making this supposition that one can explain the cutting and fracturing of bones. The characters of the cuts and the broken surfaces show the bones were still in a fresh state when the damage was done. I believe the Shukbah people ate human brains.” The cannibalism theory was strongly disputed by Professor Elliott smith, eminent geologist, who said he was entirely skeptical of it. Also Professor Smith said it was not uncommon in Egypt to find burned bones in graves. “But it is a question of remarkable interest to know what these charred bones mean,” he said. “And if it should be shown that cutting teeth was in vogue it will make us revise all our knowledge, for the earliest instance we know is in 300 B.C.” Professor Smith objected, too, that it was hardly possible that these people had had Negro blood, but Sir Arthur speedily corrected him. By the word Negroid he meant merely Negro-like characteristics such as are found throughout Europe and even in Scandinavia. Sir Arthur drew the inference that the Natufians had carried Aurignacian culture into Palestine after the last glacier age, which was approximately 35000 years ago. Later Sir Arthur read and discussed a paper form Lewis S. B. Leakey, British Archaeologist working in East Africa, announcing the discovery of a new kind of anthropoid ape from an imaginary far-off Lower Pliocene period of perhaps a million years ago. It was just a fragment of bone that Sir Arthur held up for the audience to see – a piece of limb bone, he said, of a great ape like the chimpanzee. “Maybe this is the Miocene ancestor of the chimpanzee,” he said, “or the common ancestor of the gorilla and the chimpanzee.” Unlike Dr. Leakey’s announcement of Oldoway man, now thoroughly discredited, his latest find made a deep impression on the scientists present.
I thought I'd share this article with you all. It makes for interesting reading.
Evidence of Naqadan contacts include pottery and other artifacts from the Levant that have been found in ancient Egypt Levantine pottery and objects in Egypt during Naqada II and III, Branislav Andelkovic, 2002. Southern Canaan as an Egyptian Protodynastic Colony. Cahiers Caribéens d`Egyptologie 3-4: 75-92.) and obsidian from Ethiopia and the Aegean. Egyptian artifacts dating to this era have been found in Canaan(Branislav Andelkovic, 1995. The Relations between Early Bronze Age I Canaanites and Upper Egyptians, Belgrade, p. 58, map 2., Branislav Andelkovic 2002.) and other regions of the Near East, including Tell Brak(Branislav Andelkovic, 1995, pp. 68-69, map 1) and Uruk and Susa(Dominique Collon, 1987. First Impressions, Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, London, pp. 13-14. in Mesopotamia.
Early Dynastic (before c. 2575 BC)
Evidence of Early Dynastic contacts are basically a continuation of the predynastic above with further extensions into Sudan. There are also some indications of contact with the Aegean and Crete in this time period, but this evidence is weak.(Peter Warren, 1969 and 1995. Minoan Stone Vases (1969), Cambridge, pp. 108-109. Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt: in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant. Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (1995), edited by W. Vivian Davies and Louise Schofield, London, pp. 1-18.)
Some First Dynasty Egyptian pottery has been found in southern Canaan,(Naomi Porat, 1986/87. Local Industry of Egyptian Pottery in Southern Palestine During the Early Bronze I Period, in Bulletin of the Egyptological, Seminar 8 (1986/87), pp. 109-129.) including some bearing the name of Narmer.(Wolfgang Helck, 1987. Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit, in Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, 45. Wiesbaden, p. 132.
Other reflections of Near Eastern contact particularly include a design of a flint knife.{H. S. Smith, 1992. The Making of Egypt: A Review of the Influence of Susa and Sumer on Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th Millennium B.C., in The Followers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman,, edited by Renee Friedman and Barbara Adams, Oxford.) ________________________________________
Evergreen Writes:
As you can see another attempt at misrepresentation by Jaime. Initially he claimed that there was evidence for large-scale extra African admixture to the African populations prior to the LBA. When I 'called him on it' he retracted this position and instead now claims there was 'CONTACT'. Hell, we can find evidence of 'CONTACT' between modern Japan and the USA with products such as Toyota cars etc. This does not mean there is or was a large-scale migration of Japanese into the USA.
Jaime, this is known as TRADE.
.....
[ 01. May 2007, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Horus_Den_1 ]
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
"I accept the view of Abdel-Latif Aboul-Elam the director of the Egyptian Embassy's cultural office in 1989 when he declared that Egyptians are neither black nor white but Egyptian. And if they did indeed migrate there, they did not come from very far away. Morphologically they tie in with the people from North Africa and the Arabian peninsula who have effectively been there since the Pleistocene.
Evergreen Writes:
The following is an actual peer-reviewed study on the affinities of Plesitocene North Africans.
Evergreen Posts:
The Iberomaurusian enigma: North African progenitor or dead end?
J.D. Irish
Journal of Human Evolution (2000)39, 393-410
"The late Paleolithic Nubian sample, ca, 14,500 - 12,500 BP, consists of 67 crania from Jebel Sahaba (and Tushka) in Lower Nubia."
"...post-Pleistocene North Africans, are extremely divergent from Late Pliestocene Nubians. The latter are more akin to Sub-Saharan Africans."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palestinian is an ethnic nationality. Negroid is outdated anthropology. What prevents "Palestinians" being negroid? The artifacts certainly include negroids among other "Palestinian" phenotypes.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: ... all i said was that they depicted their palestinian and negroid prisoners physically different ...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Giza Egyptians I measured tell me they are more European than Middle Eastern. One was clearly a German Neolithic specimen, and the rest were either French or northern Italian.
Evergreen Writes:
One has to contextualize this information within the framework of African migrations during the early Holocene. Nile Valley Africans migrated out of the Egyptian Delta and spread advanced technology, language, genes and phenetic traits into mesolithic Europe. In fact, this migration spawned the European Neolithic and hence cultural complexity in EBA Europe.
Evergreen Posts:
Angel JL. 1972. Biological relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean populations during Pre-dynastic and Dynastic times. J Hum Evol 1:307–313.
"...one can identify NEGROID traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecessors of Badarians and Tasians..."
Evergreen Posts:
Origins and spread of agriculture in Italy: A nonmetric dental analysis.
American journal of physical anthropology 2007 Apr 23
Coppa et al.
"This suggests that the shift in dental morphology was the product of Neolithic populations migrating into the peninsula from other areas. Nonetheless, the Paleo-Mesolithic populations share several discriminative traits with the Neolithic group. The biological relevance of such evidence suggests that, to some minor extent, the spread of agriculture did not occur by total population replacement. Because of regional small sample sizes, this hypothesis cannot be tested on a micro-regional scale. It is, however, feasible to depict a scenario where processes of genetic mixture or replacement probably took place at different rates on a macro-regional level."
Evergreen Writes:
Given that the European Neolithic originated among Egyptian Delta populations with so-called "Negroid" and "Sub-Saharan" traits, it is no surprise that the Giza Egyptians would cluster with German, French and Northern Itialian Neolithic specimens. In fact, a likely scenario is that as the Neolithic spread into Northern and Central Europe the African phenetic traits faded-out. The food-producing culture on the other-hand likely caused an increase in northern and central European populations and as trade increased these populations eventually flowed back down from northern and central Europe and into SE Europe and SW Asia. The African phenetic traits would have been swamped.
Evergreen Posts:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
2006 Jan 3;103(1):242-7
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
Brace et al.
"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Evidence of Naqadan contacts include pottery and other artifacts from the Levant that have been found in ancient Egypt Levantine pottery and objects in Egypt during Naqada II and III, Branislav Andelkovic, 2002. Southern Canaan as an Egyptian Protodynastic Colony.
Evergreen Writes:
A carefull reading of your post actually proves the OPPOSITE of what you were intending it to prove. The above post indicates population movement FROM Africa TO the Levant. This is consisent with what we know from the anthropological record.
Evergreen Posts:
The excavation of Gezer 1902-1905 and 1907-1909 by Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister
"At least two crania were in shape, size, and facial character markedly negroid in type, and several, especially of those found in the city dating from about 1500 R.c., shewed the elongated oval form with large parietal eminences which is common in Egypt but rare in Palestine. From the many evidences of close Egyptian connexion with the city this was only to be expected."
Evergreen Posts:
American journal of physical anthropology
1988 Mar;75(3):375-90
An analysis of crania from Tell-Duweir using multiple discriminant functions
SO Keita
"It is possible to say that the objective evidence does not deny an hypothesis of biological heterogeneity in some general sense at Lachish, which specific historical and archaeological data unequivocably predict. It is suggested that the Egypto-Nubian presence is supported."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE] Evergreen Writes:
Given that the European Neolithic originated among Egyptian Delta populations with so-called "Negroid" and "Sub-Saharan" traits, it is no surprise that the Giza Egyptians would cluster with German, French and Northern Itialian Neolithic specimens. In fact, a likely scenario is that as the Neolithic spread into Northern and Central Europe the African phenetic traits faded-out. The food-producing culture on the other-hand likely caused an increase in northern and central European populations and as trade increased these populations eventually flowed back down from northern and central Europe and into SE Europe and SW Asia. The African phenetic traits would have been swamped.
Evergreen Writes:
As this African derived techno-biological wave spread through the Levant, into SE Europe and up the Danube and into Central and Northen Europe the African derived males would have had the technological upperhand and had greater access to breeding with indigenous pre-LGM European women. This may also explain why we see E3b1-M78 Y-Chromosome spread up the Danube, while African maternal lineages of the L* clade fade-out rapidly as we penetrate the fertile crescent.
Evergreen Posts:
First Farmers by Peter Bellwood 2005
"A recent strontium isotope analysis of female skeletons from LBK contexts in the Rhineland perhaps tells us how such a cline might have originated, in this case via the in-marrying or capture of non-local (Mesolithic?) females who grew up in, and thus acquired chemical signatures in their bones from upland areas away from the riverine landscape favored for LBK farming (Bentley et al. 2003)."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanx for posting that info Evergreen, you basically answered all of my questions also.. Taken out of context, alleged comments like these from Brace can be very misleading when not elaborated on...
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Palestinian is an ethnic nationality. Negroid is outdated anthropology. What prevents "Palestinians" being negroid? The artifacts certainly include negroids among other "Palestinian" phenotypes.
He never answered my question as to what differentiates those prisoners physically from Somali, so, he gets your point.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
"The late Paleolithic Nubian sample, ca, 14,500 - 12,500 BP, consists of 67 crania from Jebel Sahaba (and Tushka) in Lower Nubia."
"...post-Pleistocene North Africans, are extremely divergent from Late Pliestocene Nubians. The latter are more akin to Sub-Saharan Africans."
I suspect this is from their "dental" analysis. Yeap, even Groves acknowledges this in his piece, as noted in the discussion of Upper Paleolithic to early Neolithic crania in North Africa, whereby he states this about the so-called "Mechtoid" Jebel Sahaba specimens:
3. That the Nubian sample represents a “Europoid” population undergoing “Negroidization” (Thoma 1973). or… that the Nubian samples belong to the Mechta-Afalou type and are not connected with “Negroid” (sub-Saharan) peoples (Anderson 1968).
Groves says:
This hypothesis cannot be supported. In all analyses, Nubia is well separated from Taforalt, with the Afalou somewhat intermediate. The differences are: longer, narrower calvaria; more development of parietal keel; less rugged occipital and basicranial regions; more prognathous; flatter nasal skeleton; less protruding mandibular syphilis; lower frequency of sharp infer lateral orbital margin; narrower biorbital, wider bizygomaxillary breadth; relatively wider intertribal breadth; lower basibregmatic height in males; less sexual dimorphism; males less robust, females more so. These features recall the differences of modern sub-Saharan (Negroid) populations from those of general Caucasoid type.
And of course, Keita's reaction to this, with regards to caution about interpreting observations of change in dental morphology, is worth repeating:
"Recently Irish (Joel D.) and Turner (1990) and Turner and Markowitz (1990) have suggested that the populations of Nubia and Egypt of the agricultural periods were not primarily descendents of the geographical populations of mesolithic/epipaleolithic times. Based on dental morphology, they postulate as almost total replacement of the native /African epipaleolithic and neolithic groups by populations or peoples from further north (Europe or the near east?)
They take issue with the well-known post-pleistocene/hunting dental reduction and simplification hypothesis which postulate in situ microevolution driven by dietary change, with minimal gene flow (admixture).
However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclicial climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects.
The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-dessication Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration. Biologically these people were essentially the SAME. It is also possible that the dental traits could have been introduced from an external source, and increased in frequency primarily because of natural selection, either for the trait or for growth pattern requiring less energy.
There is no evidence for sudden or gradual mass migration of Europeans or Near Easterners into the valley, as the term 'replacement' would imply.
There is limb ratio and craniofacial morphological and metric CONTINUITY in Upper-Egypt-Nubia in a broad sense from the late paleolithic through dynastic periods, although change occured." - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
And elsewhere:
"As previously mentioned, a review of the photographs and descriptions of Nazlet Khater (30,000 BP), Wadi Kubanniya (20,000 BP), Jebel Sahaba-Wadi Halfa (12,000-6000 BP) and Badari-Nakada-Dynasty I (4400BC-3100 BCE) remains suggest CONTINUITY (Thomas 1984; Stewart 1985; Angel and Kelly 1986; Anderson 1968; Strouhal 1971; Morant 1925). Thomson and MacIver (1905) found continuity throughout the dynastic period. This is not to suggest that no Near Eastern immigration occurred, but it is to **CAUTION** against the **sole use of one kind of data** when postulating mass human movements. All kinds of data must be used to choose between competing models of explanation.” - Keita.
posted
^LOL And again, Jaime is beaten into silence with his stupidity exposed.
It will only be a matter of time before the twit troll will pop up again talking about "strawmen" and such! I believe Jaime AKA Salsassin, AKA the other 7 aliases, is the real strawman in that he is a scarecrow in need of brains! ROTFLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care where he is as long as he stays away from here, please God please (and I don't ask for much, so please grant this my prayer).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: The rest of your post is jibberish, which anyone on here can pick apart.
Your wishful thinking is entertaining
quote:But this I want to address. Please point me to the Peer-Reviewed source for this claim. Brace can ASSUME anything, but the scientific method calls for peer-review. In addition, it is not unusual that AE would tie in with Pliestocene North Africans, especially since the Pliestocene runs all the way up to the Dynastic era. The Badarians were North Africans and would fit into this picture. What Brace is using is known as 'double-talk'. Pliestocene North Africans migrated from LGM tropical East Africa as Brace himself knows and has admitted. So tieing Dynastic Africans to other Dynastic Africans tells us nothing. Now if we go back further in time we know that Joel Irish conducted phenetic analysis on early Holocene North East Africans and they clustered with modern Sub-Saharan Africans phenetically. This WAS a peer-reviewed study. In addition most of North Africa and many parts of the Arabian penninsula were depopulated until the early Holocene when there was a repopulation by the predecessors of the Badarians and Natufians. All of this is from peer-reviewed sources unlike Braces COMMENT via a email to you.
Brace's response to your spouting:
quote:the substance for my claims I published the data and the statistics with the help of six co-authors in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103(1):242-247 on January 3, 2006. That counts as a distinguished peer-reviewed journal. It should be noted that the Natufian is not the source of the European Neolithic. The pottery and agriculture of the Natufian came down from Anatolia and was adopted by the Natufian in Israel. Our data do show whiffs of sub-Saharan Africa in the Natufian but not in the Neolithic skeletal material from Greece, Italy, or elsewhere in Europe. Since I am not an archaeologist, I have relied on colleagues who are archaeologists to provide me with sources and analysis of the Natufian and other sites. My archaeological colleagues have actually worked on the Natufian and other Neolithic sites in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and eastern and western Europe. Kent Flannnery, Henry Wright, John O'Shea, and Rich Redding are all well-known and widely published in the business, and I have always used their help in assessing the evidence. The skeletal work was done largely by me, but my co-authors have worked on collections I could not get to to provide the needed metric data.
Then let's look at Irish's response:
quote:Here is an excerpt from my 2006 Egyptian paper. Beyond the citations below, Hendrickx and Vermeersh (2000) also suggest influence on the Badari culture from the Levant.
The numerically-derived affinities in Table 4, and their patterning as illustrated by the MDS and CA figures (Figs. 2, 3 and 5), suggest that there is some measure of homogeneity among the bulk of Egyptian samples. Specifically, the aforementioned clustering of 11 or so samples is reminiscent of that observed among post-Paleolithic Nubians in a previous dental study of the region (Irish, 2005). In the latter case, homogeneity was thought to be suggestive of population continuity. Similarly, the potential Egyptian continuity extends across time -- as evidenced by affinities among the three predynastic, five of seven dynastic, and two or perhaps three Roman period samples, and space - as indicated by the mostly random distribution of points denoting Upper and Lower Egyptians. If true, these findings vary from those based on cranial morphometric data that indicate biological heterogeneity, at least in predynastic times (Prowse and Lovell, 1996; Keita, 1996), and a broad clinal variation between populations in the north and south (Keita, 1990, 1992). The source of any heterogeneity is thought to have stemmed from the make-up of the "proto-predynastic" (Keita, 1992, p. 251) founding population that may have comprised many biologically distinct peoples, including Saharan, Nilotic, AND LEVANT GROUPS (Hassan, 1988; Keita, 1990, 1992; Prowse and Lovell, 1996). This amalgam is still evident in Egypt's modern peoples (Manni et al., 2002). However, the overall diachronic homogeneity indicated by the dental, as well as other data (e.g., Brace et al., 1993), is likely due to extensive interaction via trade, population movement, and genetic exchange among the many communities along the Nile between Upper and Lower Egypt (Hassan, 1988). As Hassan (1988) observes, the narrow river valley with its thin strip of habitable land would quickly be populated during the rapid late predynastic expansion. In other words, Egypt "became a melting pot" for the founding groups (Hassan, 1988, p. 135) by the predynastic period and beyond.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: The Journal of North African Studies, Vol.10, No.3–4 (September–December 2005) The Climate-Environment-Society Nexus in Sahara from Prehistoric Times to the Present NICK BROOKS, ISABELLE CHIAPELLO, SAVINO LERNIA, NICK DRAKE, MICHEL LEGRAND, MOULIN AND JOSEPH “It is worth noting that the scant palaeo-anthropological evidence (from Uan and Uan Muhuggiag in the central Sahara of Libya) points to sub-Saharan affinities.55 This fits with more recent human remains from the Egyptian oasis, which indicate similar affinity on the basis of dental analysis. These findings support the of a northwards movement of human populations as they followed the monsoon rains, which strengthened and penetrated further north into the Sahara at the beginning the Holocene. The gap between the beginning of the humid period in the after the last glacial maximum (ca. 15–13 ka) and the appearance of the Holocene occupation sites might be interpreted as a consequence of the time for vegetation and fauna to recolonise hyperarid environments. More cautiously, the first genetic data on Saharan palaeo-populations also a sub-Saharan affinity. Evidence for a southern provenance of the first Saharans might also be seen in from rock art, although the subjective nature of interpretations must be recognised: in the and Acacus depictions figures with what appear to be black African features have been interpreted indicating the possible presence of populations originating in sub-Saharan regions.”
You forgot to check the reference. 55. S. di Lernia and G. Manzi, ‘Funerary practices and anthropological features at 8000–5000 BP. Some evidence from central-southern Acacus (Libyan Sahara)’, in M. Cremaschi and S. di Lernia (Eds.),
Also from Di Lernia:
quote:Human figures are represented only in the painted imagery recorded to date; they are absent from the recorded engravings of Sluguilla, although their presence at unrecorded sites cannot be discounted. Some of the figures at Bou Dheir are represented with distinctive crests or head-dresses reminiscent of painted figures of Mediterranean or Near Eastern appearance in the central Sahara, while representations at Erqueiz are very different in appearance, suggesting at least two different population groups.
also from Di Lernia:
quote:All these elements concur to define a composite society, probably the fruit of mixing and relations with surrounding regions : also rock art, considered with caution, seems to indicate a mixture of 'races', with configurations of individuals with negroid ‘characters’, but also with ‘mediterranean’ or ‘nilotic’ peoples(Fig. 6).
quote:Posted by the guy that makes sense and I can't get rid of: These two mummies are from the same history period Maiherpra Tuthmosis
As there is diversity in other parts of Africa: These two boys from the same country (Ethioppia) and same time period
Neither of which has straight hair like Tuthmosis, but you do show one point. Same country same time period, one is East African decent all the way, the other's ancestors migrated from somewhere else: West Africa (Hamar tribe is Bantu)Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]The rest of your post is jibberish, which anyone on here can pick apart. But this I want to address. Please point me to the Peer-Reviewed source for this claim. Brace can ASSUME anything, but the scientific method calls for peer-review. In addition, it is not unusual that AE would tie in with Pliestocene North Africans, especially since the Pliestocene runs all the way up to the Dynastic era. The Badarians were North Africans and would fit into this picture. What Brace is using is known as 'double-talk'. Pliestocene North Africans migrated from LGM tropical East Africa as Brace himself knows and has admitted. So tieing Dynastic Africans to other Dynastic Africans tells us nothing. Now if we go back further in time we know that Joel Irish conducted phenetic analysis on early Holocene North East Africans and they clustered with modern Sub-Saharan Africans phenetically. This WAS a peer-reviewed study. In addition most of North Africa and many parts of the Arabian penninsula were depopulated until the early Holocene when there was a repopulation by the predecessors of the Badarians and Natufians. All of this is from peer-reviewed sources unlike Braces COMMENT via a email to you.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]BRACE: It should be noted that the Natufian is not the source of the European Neolithic. The pottery and agriculture of the Natufian came down from Anatolia and was adopted by the Natufian in Israel. Our data do show whiffs of sub-Saharan Africa in the Natufian but not in the Neolithic skeletal material from Greece, Italy, or elsewhere in Europe.
Evergreen Writes: The question of the introduction of African phenetic characteristics during the European Neolithic should be evaluated within the context of the overall introduction of the European Neolithic. The “gateway” of the European Neolithic was SE Europe (i.e., Albania, Greece, etc.). The African Neolithic was introduced from the Nile Valley, into the Levant, on into Anatolia and then into Greece.
Note that the **ONLY** Neolithic Greek sample in Brace’s study is from Nea Nikomedia. Also, note that we do not know if the Neolithic Greek sample was from the early Greek Neolithic or the later Greek Neolithic, when we see Danubian back-flow that swamped the African phenetic traits that were introduced into Europe during the EARLY NEOLITHIC. We do know from Figure 1 and 2 in Brace’s study how closely Nea Nikomedia clusters with the Algerian Neolithic (as in Algeria AFRICA). There is no surprise in this African affinity.
There were no early Neolithic Anatolian samples in Brace’s study. However, a full assessment of **EARLY** Neolithic Greek and Anatolian remains was conducted by JL Angel. Here are the results:
Lawrence Angel Journal of Human Evolutiom 1972 1, Pg 307
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]IRISH: Here is an excerpt from my 2006 Egyptian paper. Beyond the citations below, Hendrickx and Vermeersh (2000) also suggest influence on the Badari culture from the Levant.
Evergreen Writes:
Influence was never in question. There was two-way evidence of influence. Large-scale, pre-Dynastic back-flow was the real question.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]IRISH: The source of any heterogeneity is thought to have stemmed from the make-up of the "proto-predynastic" (Keita, 1992, p. 251) founding population that may have comprised many biologically distinct peoples, including Saharan, Nilotic, AND LEVANT GROUPS (Hassan, 1988; Keita, 1990, 1992; Prowse and Lovell, 1996).
Evergreen Writes:
No one questions that African derived Levantine groups sporadically entered North Africa prior to the Dynastic period. The issue is there is no evidence that it was substantial. Irish quoting Keita is no substitute. Use original sources.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]IRISH: In other words, Egypt "became a melting pot" for the founding groups (Hassan, 1988, p. 135) by the predynastic period and beyond.)
Evergreen Writes:
I have said all along that Egypt was a intra-African melting pot. This is evidenced by the presence of E3a and E3b in high frequencies in the Ancient Egyptian geographic spread.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]Di Lernia: All these elements concur to define a composite society, probably the fruit of mixing and relations with surrounding regions : also rock art, considered with caution, seems to indicate a mixture of 'races', with configurations of individuals with negroid ‘characters’, but also with ‘mediterranean’ or ‘nilotic’ peoples(Fig. 6).
Evergreen Writes:
Hey, I thought you didn’t believe in ‘Races’…..Anyway, ‘Negroid’ is a form of outdated taxonomic jargon; ‘Mediterranean’ is a location as is ‘Nilotic’. Shame on Di Lernia for responding with such a confused charcaterization and shame on you for supporting this racialist position.....hypocrite! Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yet and still Greece was a WHITE European civilization, no matter IF there was African ancestry in the lineages of some Greeks. Similarly, ancient Egypt was a BLACK African civlization, even if SOME had levantine ancestry. The U.S. is a WHITE civilization even if there are MANY people from MANY backgrounds present in the U.S. The same goes for modern European countries, who all have sizable foreign populations. The presence of foreigners does not mean that everyone is "mixed" and no matter how much people talk about it, the U.S. is not really a "melting pot", where everyone blends together into a "mixed" ethnic identity. Therefore, trying to put ancient Egypt into a "mixed" category, as if MOST ancient Egyptians were of "mixed" ancestry is ridiculous, and if they WERE mixed with anyone, it was OTHER Africans, not Levantines or Europeans. This where EVIDENCE is important as there IS NO EVIDENCE of ancient Egyptian populations being derived from LEVANTINE sources. HOWEVER, there is AMPLE and OVERWHELMING evidence of ancient Egyptians being derived from African populations to the South and West. Therefore, EVIDENCE is what separates SPECULATION from FACT and FANTASY from REALITY.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
the substance for my claims I published the data and the statistics with the help of six co-authors in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103(1):242-247 on January 3, 2006. That counts as a distinguished peer-reviewed journal. It should be noted that the Natufian is not the source of the European Neolithic. The pottery and agriculture of the Natufian came down from Anatolia and was adopted by the Natufian in Israel. Our data do show whiffs of sub-Saharan Africa in the Natufian but not in the Neolithic skeletal material from Greece, Italy, or elsewhere in Europe. Since I am not an archaeologist, I have relied on colleagues who are archaeologists to provide me with sources and analysis of the Natufian and other sites. My archaeological colleagues have actually worked on the Natufian and other Neolithic sites in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and eastern and western Europe. Kent Flannnery, Henry Wright, John O'Shea, and Rich Redding are all well-known and widely published in the business, and I have always used their help in assessing the evidence. The skeletal work was done largely by me, but my co-authors have worked on collections I could not get to to provide the needed metric data.
If indeed Brace's words, then he has just substantially contradicted his own study, in which case, he should explain why. Going back to his 2005 study, Brace noted:
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.
C. Loring Brace,*† Noriko Seguchi,‡ Conrad B. Quintyn,§ Sherry C. Fox, A. Russell Nelson,ý Sotiris K. Manolis** & Pan Qifeng‡‡
"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to sub-Saharan Africa."
"Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This suggests that there may have been a sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians — the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic — although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples."
"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
the conclusions, as per Brace et al.:
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11-15).
If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
...the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that,...
while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it.
The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
And last, but not least...
This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 32-33, 47-48), but this is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.
Indeed, the idea that "Negroid" characteristics found in Natufians and Neolithic farmers,...
"[The caves of Erq-el-Ahmar] . . . produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm.* and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding..." - Furon
...aside from the questionable "Cro-Magnoid" mention), is attributable to CROSSBREEDING, is not in doubt. It is the consensus reached by archeology, craniometry, and molecular genetics.
Basically summing it up, aside from introduction of new UEPs, i.e. V36 and V65, the study shifts the origin of M78 northward [from my own inference, likely in the vicinity of Upper Egypt, based on the highest frequencies], having found high microsatellite diversity and frequency distribution both in "north-eastern Africa" and "eastern Africa", but deeming north-eastern Africa as having the upper-hand on those accounts, as well as in terms of M78 sub-clade diveristy in the comparative analysis, AFTER the removal of the DYS19 microsatellite locus, otherwise known by its gamma cluster [whose contribution was deemed to have lent bias towards the east African chromosomes].
The haplogroup E-V13: migrations and demographic expansion in western Eurasia
Haplogroup E-V13 is the only E-M78 lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%). The same haplography is also present at lower frequencies in Anatolia (3.8%), the Near East (2%) and the Caucasus (1.8%). In Africa, Haplogroup E-V13 is rare, being observed only in northern Africa at a low frequency (.9%). The European E-V13 micro satellite haplotypes are related to each other to form a nearly perfect star-like network (fig. 4A), a likely consequence of a rapid demographic expansion (Jobling, Hurles and Tyler-Smith 2004). The TMRCA of the European E-V13 chromosomes turns out to be 4-4.7 ky (under two different demographic expansion scenarios, see methods. 95% C.I> 3.5-4.6 ky and 4.1-5.3 ky, respectively). On the other hand, when only E-V13 chromosomes from western Asia are considered, the resulting network (fig. 4B) does not show such a star-like shape, and a much earlier TMRCA of 11.5 ky (95% C.I. 6.8-17; fig. 1) is obtained. These results open the possibility of recognizing time windows for I) population movements from the E-M78 **homeland** in north-eastern Africa into Eurasia, and II) population movements from western Asia into Europe and later within Europe.
The low E-V13 frequency (.9%) and micro satellite variance (.13%) in northern Africa do not support an antiquity greater than in western Asia. Thus, the most parsimonious and plausible scenario is that E-V13 originated in western Asia about 11 ky ago and its presence in northern Africa is the result of a more recent introgression. Under this hypothesis, **E-V13 chromosomes sampled in western Asia and their coalescence estimate detect a likely Paleolithic exist out of Africa of E-M78 chromosomes devoid of the V13 mutation, which later occurred somewhere in the Near East/Anatolia.** The refinement of location for the source area of such movements and associated chronologies here attained may be relevant to controversies on the spread of cultures (and languages) between Africa and Asia in the corresponding timeframes (Bellwood 2004; Ehret, Keita and Newman 2004, and references therein).
As to a western Asia-Europe connection, our data suggest that western Asians carrying E-V13 may have reached the Balkans anytime after 17 ky ago, but expanded not Europe not earlier than 5.3 ky ago. Accordingly, the allele frequency peak is located in Europe, whereas the distribution of microstatellite allele variance shows a maximum in western Asia (fig. 5).
Based on previously published data (Scozzari et al. 2001; Di Giacomo et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004; Marjanovic et al. 2005), we observed that another Haplogroup, J-M12, shows a frequency distribution within Europe similar to that observed for E-V13. In order to evaluate whether the present distribution of these two Haplogroups can be the consequence of the same expansion/dispersal micro evolutionary event, we first compared the two frequency distributions in Europe (J-M12 frequencies obtained from both published and new data; supplementary table 2). We observed a high and statistically significant correspondence between the frequencies of the two Haplogroups (r=.84, 95% C.I. .7-.92). A similar result (r=.85, 95% C.I. .7-.93) was obtained when the series was enlarged with the J-M12 data from Bosnia, Craotia, and Serbia (Marjanovic et al. 2005) matched with the frequencies of E-M78 cluster alpha (Percic et al. 2005) as a proxy for Haplogroup E-V13 (Cruciani et al. 2006). We then constructed a micro satellite network of 43 European J-M12 chromosomes (supplementary table 3) and found a clear star-like structure (fig. 4C), a further feature shared with E-V13. This similarity was mirrored by a unimodal distribution of haplotype pair-wise differences for both Haplogroups (not shown). Finally, we used tetra nucleotide micro satellite data in order in order to obtain a coalescence estimate for Europe. By taking into consideration two different demographic expansion models (see methods), we obtained TMRCA estimates very close to those of E-V13, i.e. 4.1 ky (95% C.I. 2.8-5.4 ky) and 4.7 ky (95% C.I. 3.3-6.4 ky), respectively. Thus, the congruence between frequency distributions, shape of the networks, pair-wise Haplotypic differences and coalescent estimates point to a single evolutionary event at the basis of the distribution of Haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 within Europe, a finding never appreciated before. These two Haplogroups account for more than one fourth of the chromosomes currently found in the southern Balkans, underlining the strong demographic impact of the expansion in the area.
Either environmental or cultural transitions are usually considered to be at the basis of demographic changes of the size of human populations (Jobling, Hurles and Tyler-Smith 2004). At least four major demographic events have been envisioned for this geographic area, i.e. the post-last Glacial Maximum expansion (about 20kya) (Taberlet et al. 1998; Hewitt, 2000), the Younger Dryas-Holocene re-expansion (about 12 kya), the population growth associated with the introduction of agricultural practices (about 8kya) (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1984) and the development of Bronze technology (about 5kya) (Childe, 1957; Piggott, 1965; Renfrew, 1979; Kristiansen 1998). Though large, the confidence intervals for the coalescence of both Haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 in Europe exclude expansions following the Last Glacial Maximum, or the Younger Dryas. Our estimated coalescence age of about 4.5ky for Haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 in Europe (and their C.I.s) would also exclude a demographic expansion associated with the introduction of agriculture from Anatolia and would place this event at the beginning of the Balkan Bronze Age, a period that saw strong demographic changes as clearly testified from archeological records (Childe, 1957; Piggott, 1965; Kristiansen, 1998). The arrangement of E-V13 (fig. 2D) and J-M12 (not shown) frequency surfaces appears to fit the expectations for a range expansion in an already populated territory (Klopfstein, Currat and Excoffier 2006). Moreover, similarly to the results reported by Pericic et al. 2005 for E-M78 network alpha, the dispersion of E-V13 and J-M12 Haplogroups seems to have mainly followed the river waterways connecting the southern Balkans to north-central Europe, a route that had already hastened by a factor 4-6 the spread of the Neolithic to the rest of the continent (Tringham, 2000; Davidson et al. 2006). This axis also served as a major route for the following millennia, enabling cultural and material (and possibly genetic) exchanges to and from central Europe (Childe 1957; Piggott, 1965; Kristiansen 1998). Thus the present work discloses a further level of complexity in the interpretion of the genetic landscape of south-eastern Europe, this being to a large extent, the consequence of a recent in situ rather than the result of a mere flow of western Asia migrant in the early Neolithic. Indeed, Y chromosomal data from region to the north (Kasperaviciute et al. 2004), north-west (Luca et al. 2007) and west (Di Giacomo et al. 2004) to the Balkans show signatures of demographic events that match archeologically documented changes in the population size in the first millenia B.C. - Cruciani et al., 2007, Tracing past human male movements in northern/eastern Africa and western Eurasia: new clues from Y-chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12.
With beating around the bush aside, in terms of all this stuff about how the star-like pattern of E-V13 E-M78 chromosomes in Europe point to an in situ expansion after introduction of agriculture in Europe from the “Near East”, Cruciani is just reconfirming what has long been known, and what Brace’s own study, which his supposed correspondence with a certain poster here now contradicts, and that is:
The Neolithic revolution which occurred in the Levant, in the vicinity of where now Palestine is located, was brought about by the group identified as "Natufians", a population which happened to be the product of Upper Paleolithic outflow of migrants from the Nile Valley into the Levant. The so-called “sub-Saharan” affinities of the Natufians isn’t something that first came to Brace’s attention, but a finding observed by many others before him. The reason his Northern European Neolithic crania differ more so from their contemporary living counterparts than the southern European Neolithic crania are to their living counterparts is precisely that, as he recognized in his 2005 study, the “Near Eastern” contributors of the Neolithic agricultural economy to Europe had been absorbed. It is no coincidence that the same pattern of DNA distribution, as denoted by J and E3b lineages, are not only older in “southwestern Asia” in their ages, but are also found all the way to Asian minor, and thence to Europe [where they are derived from younger expansion events]. Naturally, genetic drift would have been responsible for further distribution and frequency patterns within Europe after the introduction of Agriculture to Europe, as a consequence of population expansions therein.
In response to Brace’s supposed e-mail correspondence, it almost unanimous within the scientific community that agriculture was introduced from “southwest Asia” to the Asian minor, and from there diffused to Europe, not from Asian minor to “southwest Asia”. The latter doesn’t even genetically make sense, as far as the E3b and J distribution patterns go, which reveal older expansion dates as one goes from the “southwest Asia” into Northeast Africa; the highlighted is consistent with findings like that observed by Larry Angel, whatever the sample size, as Evergreen noted in his post:
Lawrence Angel Journal of Human Evolutiom 1972 1, Pg 307
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".
In any case, here is a study, which is consistent with the prevailing mainstream acknowledgement of whom are considered to be “Neolithic agricultural economy” innovators in the “Near East”….
Cultivating Revolutions
Early farmers may have sown social upheavals from the Middle East to Europe Nearly 80 years ago, the British archaeologist V. Gordon Childe championed a theory of what he called a revolution in food production during the Neolithic age. Childe proposed that hunting- and-gathering groups in the Middle East had been the first people to grow crops, raise animals for food, and live year-round in villages- around 10,000 years ago. In his scenario, farmers then spread into prehistoric Europe, where they spurred the equally revolutionary rise of modern civilization.
Childe's ideas triggered a scientific squabble over the roots of agriculture that has produced two polarized camps. Childe-friendly researchers hold that expanding populations of Middle Eastern farmers moved across Europe and replaced hunter-gatherers already living there. This massive migration is often portrayed as a wave of advance, in which farming populations inexorably annexed new chunks of land at a rate of about 1 kilometer annually as they cut a path northwest through Europe. In the process, they overwhelmed any hunter-gatherers who happened to be in their way.
A contrasting approach, which has arisen over the past 20 years, pegs the Neolithic transition to a movement largely of ideas, not people. In this scenario, European hunter-gatherers slowly adopted agricultural practices on their own or after brief encounters with encroaching Middle Eastern farmers. Thus, over millennia, the Europeans picked up farming techniques as they continued their nomadic ways. Proponents of this theory suspect that crops and livestock initially were eaten in Europe only on special occasions or during rituals.
This debate has now taken a novel turn. Some anthropologists are proposing that farmers spread from the Middle East into Europe via a convoluted series of prehistoric migrations. Those population pulses often covered much larger swaths of land in much shorter periods than would have been possible with a single, slowly advancing wave of cultivators.
Rapid shifts to agriculture then revolutionized social life across Europe. As cultivators came to occupy the stomping grounds of people who had long thrived as hunter-gatherers, the choice became a stark one: Farm or die.
The seeds of agriculture's eventual dominance may have been sown surprisingly early. Evidence at a Stone Age site in Israel shows that the people who lived there began to lay the groundwork for farming at least 23,000 years ago, although crop cultivation in that region didn't begin until roughly 13,000 years later. Agriculture's ancient forerunners gathered and ate seeds from grasses and wild cereals such as wheat and barley (SAT; 7/24/04, p. 61), as a substantial part of their diets. These Stone Age people didn't plant seeds, though.
Archaeological finds indicate that as conditions became colder and drier between 11,000 and 10,200 years ago, Middle Eastern groups that had founded large settlements a few millennia earlier left those outposts for a mobile, foraging lifestyle. When the weather finally turned warmer and wetter, they quickly built villages and cultivated an array of crops.
According to the new theories on agriculture's roots, this is when crop-savvy populations in the East launched a succession of smallscale treks into Europe. They often sailed vessels along the northern Mediterranean coast before reaching islands such as Cyprus or heading up major rivers such as the Danube. In some regions, farmers replaced hunter-gatherers; in other areas, natives and newcomers lived side by side.
Around 6,000 years ago, farming reached northwestern Europe and quickly reshaped the social landscape. Within a century or two, the farmers' way of life became dominant. Many hunter-gatherers who had long inhabited the region faced a wrenching change as they adopted the strange new culture of agriculture.
"The idea that foragers made a seamless, gradual transition to farming is unrealistic and has no sound evidence to support it," says Harvard University archaeologist Ofer Bar-Yosef, who contributed to a special supplement of the Aug.-Oct. 2004 Current Anthropology on the topic of agricultural revolutions of Neolithic Europe and the Middle East. Those transformations triggered the growth of complex societies and religious beliefs, Bar-Yosef contends.
GAME FOR CHANGE The immediate ancestors of the first farmers in the Middle East belonged to the Natufian culture, which lasted from about 12,800 to 10,200 years ago. The remains of game animals at four Natufian sites in Israel provide clues to what was apparently a bumpy transition to agriculture, says anthropologist Natalie D. Munro of the University of Connecticut in Storrs.
Throughout much of their existence, Natufians avidly hunted gazelle as well as small animals such as tortoises, partridges, and hares. Natufians inhabited permanent settlements or base camps in numbers large enough to necessitate hunting a wide variety of animals, in Munro's view.
The Natufians' hunting preferences changed around 11,000 years ago, as an 800-year stretch of cold, dry weather winnowed the populations of many animals in their home regions. Natufian numbers also fell with the temperature, Munro proposes. The region's inhabitants, who had congregated in large settlements, returned to their old ways of foraging from a series of temporary camps. Animal remains at these sites bolster that scenario, indicating that ancient residents still ate gazelle when they could find them, but that small prey had disappeared from their menu.
As many Middle Easterners had done for millennia, the Natufians continued to collect and eat wild cereals. Intimate knowledge of these plants and their growing seasons set the stage for cultivation, says Munro. "When climatic conditions improved around 10,000 years ago, cereal agriculture was adopted immediately," she contends.
Emily L. Jones of the University of Washington in Seattle calls this theory "an elegant and realistic alternative" to the assumption by many Childe-influenced researchers that people stabilized food supplies amid harsh weather by moving directly from foraging to farming.
Brian Hayden of Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, suspects that social and political changes, not climate change, prompted the move to agriculture in the Middle East. He notes that during the cold, dry conditions, Natufians apparently organized hunting parties to nab gazelles. This indicates that communities still needed to feed large numbers of people, Hayden says. Meat was primarily consumed at ritual feasts, in his view. Prehistoric Native Americans often hunted to stock up on meat for feasts, he notes.
As climate conditions improved, expanding Natufian societies eventually became laboratories of agriculture and animal domestication, Hayden theorizes.
GROWTH INDUSTRY - New research suggest that agriculture, including wheat cultivation, made rapid advances in the ancient Middle East and Europe.
WESTWARD HO After thus sprouting on the Mediterranean's eastern edge, agriculture set in motion the search for new expanses of land, according to the latest thinking. Early farmers had no master plan for migrating into Europe. Different groups simply moved into the continent in a haphazard fashion
One new line of evidence for such migrations comes from an analysis, directed by Sue Colledge of University College London, of preserved crops and weeds at early farming sites. Colledge's team examined data from 166 sites in the Middle East and Europe, many of which have been dated to the agricultural transition period. So-called founder crops of Neolithic fanners appeared more than 10,000 years ago in the Middle East, according to Colledge's team. These crops consisted of three domesticated cereals-emmer, einkorn, and hulled barley-together with flax and four bean varieties- lentil, pea, bitter vetch, and chickpea.
Over the next 3,000 years, local variations on this basic crop repertoire appeared in central Turkey and then in Cyprus, Crete, and Greece. Agricultural colonists of those areas must have transported grains that they then sowed in fields cleared of wild plants, Colledge asserts. Unlike the weed-strewn farming sites in the Middle East, European sites reveal remains of few weeds.
An increasingly varied set of crops moving from east to west, as documented by Colledge's team, suggests that the migration of early farmers "was not an organized one but more like an infiltration from all parts of the core to all parts of the new area," remarks Mehmet zdogan of Istanbul (Turkey) University. A new analysis of human skulls excavated at various Neolithic settlements throws an anatomical spotlight on farmers' infiltrations into Europe. Two British researchers, Ron Pinhasi of the University of Surrey Roehampton in London and Mark Pluciennik of the University of Leicester, measured and compared the shapes of 231 adult skulls from 54 sites in the Middle East and Europe.
Initial farming groups in the Middle East and Turkey differed considerably from each other in cranial shape, Pinhasi and Pluciennik find. Signature physical traits in prehistoric communities across that region reflect the growth of largely independent agricultural populations, they assert.
A small core of cultivators from central Turkey first tookagriculture westward, the researchers propose. Striking anatomical similarities link early farmers in central Turkey to people who, around 8,000 years ago, began growing crops in Greece and nearby parts of southeastern Europe.
Agriculture then gradually caught on in Mediterranean regions farther to the west, as local foragers mingled with various bands of incoming farmers, Pinhasi and Pluciennik contend. This process yielded many variations in cranial shape among these farmers as well as some commonalities between their skulls and those of hunter- gatherers who lived in the region, they say.
The new cranial findings are consistent with many simultaneous incursions of farmers into Europe, remarks Joo Zilho of the Portuguese Institute of Archaeology in Lisbon. In 2001, Zilho's analysis of farming settlements in western Europe indicated that the most-securely dated ones were built in a period lasting just 100 years or so approximately 7,400 years ago. From that narrow window of time, he estimates that it took no more than six generations for farming to spread to Portugal from what's now central Italy. Only colonists who sailed vessels along the Mediterranean coast and up European rivers could have settled such a vast area so rapidly, in Zilho's opinion.
In the past several years, other researchers have uncovered a geographic patchwork of genetic types among modern Europeans. These researchers have generally interpreted this evidence as reflecting the replacement of Neolithic hunter-gatherers by many different groups of farmers. Such genetic data could instead have resulted from breeding within geographically isolated populations of both hunter-gatherers and farmers, Pinhasi and Pluciennik caution. That possibility would support the gradual-change scenario.
A NEW WORLD Agriculture's spread may have ignited social revolutions from southeastern Europe to the continent's northwestern fringes. Archaeological evidence now shows that, about 6,000 years ago, a village lifestyle of farming and animal raising swept through what are now England, Ireland, and southern Scandinavia, says Peter Rowley-Conwy of the University of Durham in England.
"The rapidity of change must have been traumatic for huntergatherers who inhabited those regions," he says. "Agriculture's appearance in northwestern Europe represented a massive social and economic wave of disruption."
Rowly-Conwy's view clashes with a theory popular among archaeologists, many of whom regard Neolithic farm life as having gradually emerged among local hunter-gatherers throughout much of Europe. As these people grew more numerous and expanded their efforts to obtain food, social classes formed and new religious beliefs appeared, according to this view. That led to early attempts to cultivate fields as well as the construction of ceremonial structures and elaborate graves beginning around 6,000 years ago. However, no archaeological finding indicates that hunter- gatherers in northwestern Europe gradually increased in numbers or in social complexity, Rowley-Conwy asserts. Various lines of evidence instead suggest that agricultural settlements sprang up at that time throughout northwestern Europe, he says.
Newly arrived farmers first felled trees in small patches of forest. In clearings framed by stone walls, they built wooden houses, cultivated fields, and raised animals for meat and daily products (SN: 2/1/03, p. 67). Northwestern Europe's hunter- gatherers took up farming, fled the region, or starved, Rowley- Conwy proposes.
He notes that at least 175 wooden houses dating to between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago have now been identified in England, Ireland, Denmark, and southern Sweden. The remains of one or more houses typically are among the vestiges of stone walls, irrigation ditches, and tilled fields. Many of the prehistoric dwellings include storage areas holding cultivated cereal grains and remnants of foraged foods such as hazelnuts and wild apples. Other finds suggest that a similarly rapid move to agriculture occurred farther south, along the coast of what's now Portugal and Spain, says Lawrence G. Straus of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.
Still, the evidence cited of agricultural revolutions in Europe draws criticism. For instance, Julian Thomas of the University of Manchester in England doubts that anyone lived in the ancient structures labeled as houses by Rowley-Conwy. Many burned down, probably as part of a Neolithic practice of torching ceremonial buildings that held special foods such as cereal grains and cattle meat, Thomas theorizes. That fits with the theory of agriculture being slowly incorporated into hunter-gatherer culture. Despite the wealth of new data, Childe's agricultural revolution continues to stand on contested ground.
"The rapidity of change must have been traumatic for hunter- gatherers." - PETER ROWLEY-CONWY, UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM
Copyright Science Service, Incorporated Feb 5, 2005
posted
Correction: The problem with posting relatively long-winded comments, is the difficulty with which one can keep track of potential mistakes. Anyway, this piece from my last post...
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
In response to Brace’s supposed e-mail correspondence, it almost unanimous within the scientific community that agriculture was introduced from “southwest Asia” to the Asian minor, and from there diffused to Europe, not from Asian minor to “southwest Asia”. The latter doesn’t even genetically make sense, as far as the E3b and J distribution patterns go, which reveal older expansion dates as one goes from the “southwest Asia” into Northeast Africa; the highlighted is consistent with findings like that observed by Larry Angel...
...should have read this way:
"In response to Brace’s supposed e-mail correspondence, it almost unanimous within the scientific community that agriculture was introduced from “southwest Asia” to the Asian minor, and from there diffused to Europe, not from Asian minor to “southwest Asia”. The latter doesn’t even genetically make sense, as far as the J and E3b distribution patterns go, which reveal older expansion dates as one **moves** away from Europe and **moves** into “southwest Asia” and Northeast Africa, **respectively**; the highlighted is consistent with findings like that observed by Larry Angel..."
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yet and still Greece was a WHITE European civilization, no matter IF there was African ancestry in the lineages of some Greeks. Similarly, ancient Egypt was a BLACK African civlization, even if SOME had levantine ancestry. The U.S. is a WHITE civilization even if there are MANY people from MANY backgrounds present in the U.S. The same goes for modern European countries, who all have sizable foreign populations. The presence of foreigners does not mean that everyone is "mixed" and no matter how much people talk about it, the U.S. is not really a "melting pot", where everyone blends together into a "mixed" ethnic identity. Therefore, trying to put ancient Egypt into a "mixed" category, as if MOST ancient Egyptians were of "mixed" ancestry is ridiculous, and if they WERE mixed with anyone, it was OTHER Africans, not Levantines or Europeans. This where EVIDENCE is important as there IS NO EVIDENCE of ancient Egyptian populations being derived from LEVANTINE sources. HOWEVER, there is AMPLE and OVERWHELMING evidence of ancient Egyptians being derived from African populations to the South and West. Therefore, EVIDENCE is what separates SPECULATION from FACT and FANTASY from REALITY.
What stupidity. greece is not a White population and the US is not a White country. It's largest ethnicity is White. And furthermore, By and large, Egyptians portrayed themselves as lighter than their southern neighbors. So they obvioulsy had significant enough a presence of lighter skinned people that they saw themselves as lighter. Probably like the Dominican Republic compared to Haiti. Both have lighter and darker skinned people. But the level of predominance is different.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yet and still Greece was a WHITE European civilization, no matter IF there was African ancestry in the lineages of some Greeks. Similarly, ancient Egypt was a BLACK African civlization, even if SOME had levantine ancestry. The U.S. is a WHITE civilization even if there are MANY people from MANY backgrounds present in the U.S. The same goes for modern European countries, who all have sizable foreign populations. The presence of foreigners does not mean that everyone is "mixed" and no matter how much people talk about it, the U.S. is not really a "melting pot", where everyone blends together into a "mixed" ethnic identity. Therefore, trying to put ancient Egypt into a "mixed" category, as if MOST ancient Egyptians were of "mixed" ancestry is ridiculous, and if they WERE mixed with anyone, it was OTHER Africans, not Levantines or Europeans. This where EVIDENCE is important as there IS NO EVIDENCE of ancient Egyptian populations being derived from LEVANTINE sources. HOWEVER, there is AMPLE and OVERWHELMING evidence of ancient Egyptians being derived from African populations to the South and West. Therefore, EVIDENCE is what separates SPECULATION from FACT and FANTASY from REALITY.
What stupidity. greece is not a White population and the US is not a White country. It's largest ethnicity is White. And furthermore, By and large, Egyptians portrayed themselves as lighter than their southern neighbors. So they obvioulsy had significant enough a presence of lighter skinned people that they saw themselves as lighter. Probably like the Dominican Republic compared to Haiti. Both have lighter and darker skinned people. But the level of predominance is different.
Maa' kherew,
Ancient Egypt was PREDOMINANTLY derived from populations IN AFRICA, with the influence from OUTSIDE Africa being relatively small. WHITE SKIN is not INDIGENOUS to Africa and was not INDIGENOUS to Africa 6,000 years ago. The populations that made up the MAJORITY of the Egyptian population came from the SOUTH, among pastoral nomadic and sedentary AFRICAN populations who practiced agriculture, cattle herding and organized living going back to around 8,000 B.C and prior. They were ALL black Africans. Therefore, just because there were some NON Africans in the Nile Valley does not mean that ALL Nile Valley Egyptians were "mixed" with NON Africans. Just like because SOME Greeks are NON European, does not make ALL GREEKS "mixed" with Non Europeans. It is blatantly and ABSURD argument. Populations are not kool-aid, they dont "mix" like that. Any diversity among the Egyptians of the predynastic to early dyanstic period is overwhelmingly INDIGENOUS to the Nile Valley and does NOT represent any "foreign" admixture. It is true that the Egyptians portrayed themselves as LIGHTER than their southern neighbors, but MOST BLACK AFRICANS TODAY are lighter than those JET BLACK so-called "Nubians" in the Egyptian portraits. Therefore, the contrast between the Egyptians and those "so-called" Nubians is NOT outside the variation seen WITHIN black African populations in Africa today. In most of the images of Egyptian art the Egyptians portrayed themselves as BROWN, not light cream, not light tan, not pink but a good solid intermediate brown, which is BLACK, by any standard of measurement.
I know your point, you keep saying it over and over, but the ancient Egyptians were NOT outside the diversity found WITHIN black Africa and they were not some "special" race or population of Africans who were some "hybrid" who could not be labelled as BLACK African. The ancient Egyptians were INDIGENOUS to Africa and closely related to OTHER Nile Valley Africans like those to the South and those in the deserts. Therefore any variation falls WITHIN the context of black African populations not OUTSIDE of it.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [QUOTE]What stupidity. greece is not a White population and the US is not a White country. It's largest ethnicity is White.
Evergreen Writes:
Yet earlier you claimed there were no humans who were White or Black. No credibility.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]"A small core of cultivators from central Turkey first tookagriculture westward, the researchers propose. Striking anatomical similarities link early farmers in central Turkey to people who, around 8,000 years ago, began growing crops in Greece and nearby parts of southeastern Europe."
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct Mystery Solver. Brace's email response is misleading. Angel analyzed EARLY Neolithic remains in Anatolia and Greece and noted Sub-Saharan affinities. Food production and population increases go hand-in-hand. So the spill over into Eurasia from the Nile Valley is reasonable.
Effective population size was greater in Africa than other regions of the world because Africans were the first people to invent microlithic tools such as the sickle, arrow-heads, etc. They were also far in advance as it relates to grindstones and the uniserial harpoon.
In fact the, uniserial harpoon may have spread from the LGM Great Lakes region to the Sahara during the early holocene among Y-Chromosome haplogroup A carriers. Africans practiced pre-LGM fishing cultivation techniques that may have created a cultural predisposition for the later cultivation of crops. The understanding of the cyclical nature of rain, sun and "fish farming" could be the basis of later "neolithic revolutions".
Upper Nile Valley Africans similarly practiced a delayed-response, cultivators culture along the pre-Holocene Nile. This culture was disrupted during the late LGM and these Africans migrated into the Levant.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic