posted
Without beating this do death, in the tomb of Mesehti, there are two sets of soldiers, one Medjay and the other Egyptians. The Egyptians are somewhat lighter than the Medjay, but not THAT different is the point. BOTH are derived from the SAME populations that populated the Nile and therefore it ONLY makes sense that they would not be THAT different.
Common sense says that those southerners on Egypt's southern borders were NOT that much different from those to the North of the border. It therefore begs the question who were these soldiers and precisely where did they come from? Sudanese, even today, are all not that dark and those in the North are definitely not as dark as those depicted as jet black or super dark brown in ancient Egypt. Therefore, to contrast the two sets of soldiers and try to suggest that one is "black" and the other "unblack" is ridiculous, as the comparison is not between black and white, but shades of brown, with BOTH being within the identified as "black" African.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Sudanese, even today, are all not that dark and those in the North are definitely not as dark as those depicted as jet black or super dark brown in ancient Egypt.
Obviously some mixing with non-Africans, especially from west Asia, has occurred in the last 3,000 years.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Overall, this citation, allegedly from Brace, is an example of how data gets distorted or twisted out of context.
Just because there was heterogeneity (differences) between Northern and Southern Egyptian crania in proto to early dynastic times, does not prove Levantine influence. There is heterogeneity across all populations in all parts of the world. This is the normal situation for all humans everywhere. Without any meaningful comparison between Levantine or other Eurasian crania to compare against, it cannot be suggested that the Northern Egyptian crania in proto or predynastic times was the result of overwhelming Levantine influence in Northern Egypt. Likewise, only having one or two samples is not enough to generalize for a whole population, as those two samples do not necessarily reflect the majority. This is part of the problem inherent in cranial studies from any period or any place. And finally, if you cannot point out any specific cranial or other features that are supposedly Levantine in origin, then you cannot say that the variation in Northern Egypt was due to Levantine influence. If it was that overwhelming, then such features and distinctions should be easily identifiable in the cranial data.
Likewise, this:
quote: 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).
Are snippets that present a totally outdated definition of PURE African diversity, with such terms as "Negroid", "Nilotic" and "Mediterranean" only distorting and minimizing diversity of AFRICAN populations and not providing any sort of realistic assessment of phenotypical diversity among African groups in the Neolithic Sahara. Likewise, such variation does not reflect any sort of different "racial" groups. If that was the case, then there are MANY different races IN Africa, as the diversity among African populations is greater than almost any place in the world.
Here is a link to a full paper which identifies these cultures in the central Sahara as PURELY indigenous, with no indication of any outside "mixture". Therefore, any craniofacial variation of these populations only reflects the indigenous diversity of AFRICAN populations, not separate "races".
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Sudanese, even today, are all not that dark and those in the North are definitely not as dark as those depicted as jet black or super dark brown in ancient Egypt.
Obviously some mixing with non-Africans, especially from west Asia, has occurred in the last 3,000 years.
That may be true. However, those Africans around Aswan to the second cataract were very likely not very much dissimilar to the Egyptians 5,000 years ago. Therefore, when speaking of VERY DARK Sudanese, you have to further South, where there are indeed VERY DARK Sudanese. However,if you go further south from Sudan, the population again varies and there is no SINGLE shade of brown African across the width and breadth of Africa. There are pockets of extremely dark people, but overall most Africans are NOT that dark, which has nothing to do with foreign admixture. Therefore, it is NOT accurate to try and put BLACK Africans into a single monolithic category of jet black with big lips, as MOST black Africans do NOT fit into that category.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Same paint used for hair and skin. Why the difference if they saw them as the same?
The above are all Black, deparate strawmen arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. No one states that Km.t Rm.t saw themselves as -the same- as any other people, but only that they saw themselves as Blacks, and referrred to themselves such, as shown in the iconography.
The Burden is entirely on you to contradict the evidence that they referred to themselves as Blacks, and prove that they referred to themselves instead as 'mixed'.
You have yet to offer any evidence of either contention because there is none.
Your mixed-race-racist semantics are a failure.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Rm.t classified themselves and Nhsy as Blacks. They often showed the Nehesi to be darker but not always, sometimes Rm.t and Km.t are shown, as above, as literally Black.
quote:Banned Troll writes: No evidence of this at all.
Incorrect, from the Teka Hra scroll of the Book of Gates, shown above, we know that the AE regarded both themselves and the Nehesi as Blacks, and regarded the Asiatics and Tameu as Reds.
The Black man to the left is labeled as and "Egyptian" ie Ret N' Rome, man above men.
You inability to address the above is not a form of debate, it is only a form of denial, and dismissed as such.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: It's also worth noting that the original 'Libyans' of Siwa Oasis were portrayed as dark skinned as well. [as is the current population of Siwa]
It's only from the late kingdom that we begin to see the lighter skinned Tamehu Libyans. Hope this helps.
quote:Banned Troll writes: You have yet to provide evidence for this.
Of course we have, you simply have not addressed it:
The Egyptians called the population of the neighboring Libya `Tehenu.' They were pictured with dark complexion and curly hair.[Ahmed Fakhir, `Siwa Oasis', (Cairo, 1973), p. 75]
^ The burden is one you to prove that the above is incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ]That may be true. However, those Africans around Aswan to the second cataract were very likely not very much dissimilar to the Egyptians 5,000 years ago. Therefore, when speaking of VERY DARK Sudanese, you have to further South, where there are indeed VERY DARK Sudanese. However,if you go further south from Sudan, the population again varies and there is no SINGLE shade of brown African across the width and breadth of Africa. There are pockets of extremely dark people, but overall most Africans are NOT that dark, which has nothing to do with foreign admixture. Therefore, it is NOT accurate to try and put BLACK Africans into a single monolithic category of jet black with big lips, as MOST black Africans do NOT fit into that category.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Kmst [Black Lady]
quote:Banned Troll writes: Yes, a dark skinned lady surrounded by a bunch of non darkskinned Egyptians.
Incorrect, should read:
Black Egyptian princess, 'Kemsit', being attended to by anonymous light skinned servant girls.
Feel free to actually start *presenting* 'evidence' to the contrary instead of simply denying the evidence.
Denying is not debating, sorry.
Actually you are helping him in this debate Rasol because he could say that that kemsit is from somewhere else and not indigenous to Egypt. Then you would say "no" because her name is "kem"sit and he could say "yeah she is of km.t because she is a CITIZEN..and not indigenous. No one denies that blacks were EVER in Egypt they just deny them being indigenous and building it. You have to think how the opposition thinks Rasol to be "complete" I have to admit that I see you not doing this a lot and I just want to bring it to your awareness. I think it would help you in your arguments to "polarize" them first..just a tip.
You should have said that those girls are light because they are either
1. "young" girls or
2. the artist maintained the model of making women light colored due to weakness and kept the "kemsit" BLACK because she denotes authority or power(obviously because they are serving her)
I myself have an image of a light skinned male figure being circumsized by other dark skinned males. Which means that yes the light skin(yellowish) color DOES indeed denote "youth" and or "weakness"(and weakness should be interpreted as "to be coveted" which ARE CHILDREN, WOMEN and OLD PEOPLE) or else why would they show the light skinned male being circumsized by the other darkies....because he is a BOY and THEY are MEN(Rm.t).
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Same paint used for hair and skin. Why the difference if they saw them as the same?
The above are all Black, deparate strawmen arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. No one states that Km.t Rm.t saw themselves as -the same- as any other people, but only that they saw themselves as Blacks, and referrred to themselves such, as shown in the iconography.
The Burden is entirely on you to contradict the evidence that they referred to themselves as Blacks, and prove that they referred to themselves instead as 'mixed'.
You have yet to offer any evidence of either contention because there is none.
Your mixed-race-racist semantics are a failure.
The fact of the matter is, that the underlying assumption within the question made in the quotation that you responding to, regarding the so-called lack of distinction between the color of hair and body of the soldiers in question, has already been discredited in another discussion:
close-up(clickable) [a direct post would not be appropriate due to the oversize of the image]
Note: In the close-up, the "Medjay" of the Egyptian army is clearly shown in the 'dark brown' hue which, quite unlike the supposedly "blown-up" manipulations of images taken from the picture ensemble of a prior post of mine - which misleadingly invoke the idea that the skin hue of "Medjay" are essentially the same as that of their hair color, DOES NOT approximate their hair color [which is 'black']. Only the intellectually inept will fail to see this.
quote:Actually you are helping him in this debate Rasol because he could say that that kemsit is from somewhere else and not indigenous to Egypt.
You could claim that Princess Kemsit is from Mars, but it wouldn't help you, since she is still referred to as Keme' Black which the same term the Km.t used for the general population.
Also the scam of making Kemsit or Pepi, or Mentuhoteop, or Tiye or anyone else who is too overpoweringly black into honorary "Nubians", that is a very old tactic of Eurocentric Egyptology.
It isn't an effective argument to make to educated audiences.
After all, what is the Tomb or RamsesIII controversy about, but the attempt to claim that the Black Africans shown must therefore not be AE, because they are too black....
^ This "must be a nubian" argument only works if you can't read mdw ntr.
quote:Then you would say "no" because her name is "kem"sit and he could say "yeah she is of km.t because she is a CITIZEN..and not indigenous.
You've got it backwards.
Actually that would be very foolish argument for Jamie, because he denies that Km.t is *ever* used for anyone other than "Egyptians" to begin with.
It's actually important for him that mdw ntr term, so often used to describe AE, not be used for any other Black Africans, which would only further illustrate what is stated in the Book of Gates to begin with, which is that the term is ETHNIC.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Same paint used for hair and skin. Why the difference if they saw them as the same?
The above are all Black, deparate strawmen arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. No one states that Km.t Rm.t saw themselves as -the same- as any other people, but only that they saw themselves as Blacks, and referrred to themselves such, as shown in the iconography.
The Burden is entirely on you to contradict the evidence that they referred to themselves as Blacks, and prove that they referred to themselves instead as 'mixed'.
You have yet to offer any evidence of either contention because there is none.
Your mixed-race-racist semantics are a failure.
The fact of the matter is, that the underlying assumption within the question made in the quotation that you responding to, regarding the so-called lack of distinction between the color of hair and body of the soldiers in question, has already been discredited in another discussion:
close-up(clickable) [a direct post would not be appropriate due to the oversize of the image]
Note: In the close-up, the "Medjay" of the Egyptian army is clearly shown in the 'dark brown' hue which, quite unlike the supposedly "blown-up" manipulations of images taken from the picture ensemble of a prior post of mine - which misleadingly invoke the idea that the skin hue of "Medjay" are essentially the same as that of their hair color, DOES NOT approximate their hair color [which is 'black']. Only the intellectually inept will fail to see this.
You're right Supercar, actually the same paint is not used for hair and skin for the Medijay, who are indeed portrayed with the same skin tones as often seen amonst Rm.t, so Jamie has been caught 'red-handed' in and act of photoshop masturbation again... lol.
Jamie needs to grow up, get a life and stop playing with himself.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually you are helping him in this debate Rasol because he could say that that kemsit is from somewhere else and not indigenous to Egypt.
You could claim that Princess Kemsit is from Mars, but it wouldn't help you, since she is still referred to as Keme' Black which the same term the Km.t used for the general population.
Also the scam of making Kemsit or Pepi, or Mentuhoteop, or Tiye or anyone else who is too overpoweringly black into honorary "Nubians", that is a very old tactic of Eurocentric Egyptology.
It isn't an effective argument to make to educated audiences.
After all, what is the Tomb or RamsesIII controversy about, but the attempt to claim that the Black Africans shown must therefore not be AE, because they are too black....
^ This "must be a nubian" argument only works if you can't read mdw ntr.
quote:Then you would say "no" because her name is "kem"sit and he could say "yeah she is of km.t because she is a CITIZEN..and not indigenous.
You've got it backwards.
Actually that would be very foolish argument for Jamie, because he denies that Km.t is *ever* used for anyone other than "Egyptians" to begin with.
It's actually important for him that mdw ntr term, so often used to describe AE, not be used for any other Black Africans, which would only further illustrate what is stated in the Book of Gates to begin with, which is that the term is ETHNIC.
Oh ok lol..then yeah he is just trolling then.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try. Again. The Egyptians by and large depicted themselves as lighter. ONE SET of Egyptian pikemen is depicted as darker and STILL lighter than the Medjay. Still using two colors instead of one. Now obviously Southern Egyptians were by and large the same as the Medjay. But it still remains that Egyptians by and large portrayed themselves as different. And like Dominicans, that may have been because of higher variation. Plenty of parts of the DR have people as dark as Haiti, but still on average the Dominican is lighter than the Haitian. A similar possibility could have occured in Egypt. And like the Dominicans, they would not consider themselves Black, nor Mixed, just Egyptians. I have always said Kmtyw is ethnic. You guys are the ones trying to make it racial.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ We've always said you were a liar and loser, and you've certainly proven it.
Now, go photo-chop some more fake images.
rotfl!
quote:You're right Supercar, actually the same paint is not used for hair and skin for the Medijay, who are indeed portrayed with the same skin tones as often seen amonst Rm.t, so Jamie has been caught 'red-handed' in and act of photoshop masturbation again... lol.
Jamie needs to grow up, get a life and stop playing with himself.
posted
Nice try. Feel free to post your own closeups and prove I photoshopped any color changes. You are full of it. And considering how much time you spend on this forum, I would say you are the one who needs a life. LMAO.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're right Supercar, actually the same paint is not used for hair and skin for the Medijay, who are indeed portrayed with the same skin tones as often seen amonst Rm.t, so Jamie has been caught 'red-handed' in and act of photoshop masturbation again... lol.
Jamie needs to grow up, get a life and stop playing with himself.
posted
^LOL at Jaime's desperation of "lighter" (compared to the Medjay) all of a sudden means "not black"!! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, in that picture you can see a slight difference. In the other you can't. But that is lighting, not my fault. They still depict the Nubians as darker. In every case in that tomb. So if those are supposed to be realistic depictions, then they perceived themselves as lighter than Nubians. Myra's picture is with a bright flash. Lets look at the Egyptian pikemen with a similar flash. They are still lighter. And let's look at them with regular light. This picture hosted by Myra so the liars can't claim I adulterated it. Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:banned troll writes: Yeah, in that picture you can see a slight difference.
You claimed their was none, and that the same paint was used for hair and skin. That was a lie.
You presented distorted photoshopped images in order to bolster your lie.
But it didn't work, because the only one stupid enough to not see how prepostrous your 'techniques' are, is you. Not to mention the fact that your photoshop skills are sorely lacking.
Now you make pathetic excuses...
quote:banned troll writes: not my fault
In the sense of the mentally ill and or mentally incompetent not being responsible for their own actions, perhaps that is true, yes.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Again no one argued that the Egyptians depicted themselves lighter than the Medjay and NOT 'Nubians', but how is this evidence that Egyptians did not consider themselves as 'black', which the Egyptians did call themselves-- Kememu??
Poor mixed-up troll!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^Again no one argued that the Egyptians depicted themselves lighter than the Medjay and NOT 'Nubians', but how is this evidence that Egyptians did not consider themselves as 'black', which the Egyptians did call themselves-- Kememu??
Poor mixed-up troll!
With regards to the ensemble of pics. of miniatures that I posted earlier, I know that there have been references to the miniature "darker" counterpart of the Egyptian army as "Medjay". I take it that this is an assumption rooted in the idea that any "Nubian" mercenary section of the Egyptian army was drawn primarily from the "Medjay". However, to be precise, with regards to these relatively 'darker' sections of the Egyptian army being the "Medjay", the question that needs to be asked, is whether this assessment is based on the primary text labeling of the miniatures by the AE?
See, for instance the following:
^Courtesy of Osirisnet
Are these the "Medjay" of the Egyptian army? I mean, they are referenced as "Nubians" elsewhere, and as being part of the Egyptian army. Although they have their own characterizations in terms of garments [with the leopard tail], including possibly the wigs, the so-called "Nubians" are here again virtually indistinguishable from their so-called "Egyptian" counterparts. Have the "Medjay" too, not been referenced as "Nubians"? Basically, I'm asking if there is a difference between "Medjay" and "Nubian", with regards to your statement...because I have been under the assumption that the "Medjay" have often been portrayed by Eurocentric distorters of history to be a subset of the 'generalized' pseudo-historical construct [of European making] of the so-called "Nubians" from the pseudo-historical complex called "Nubia". As for the latter, I hope some of us - the informed ones, are already aware of the fact that "Nubia" as a historical cultural entity is fake, and that this fact had been discussed numerous times now.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The central lie from Jamie, which has now been debunked several times, was that Southerners [by whatever name] were drawn with a single shade of black, for hair, eyes and skin, and which uniformly distinguished them from Kemetian.
As has been shown, this is not the case, Jamie's faked photos notwithstanding.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol's claims of fake pictures are quite entertaining. The first picture is Myra's, the second is mine. Funny, they both show they are the same shade. Under flash they show some variation. Under normal light, they do not. Are you going to claim Myra Wysinger's pictures are fake as well?Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jamie's desparate search for excuses for his lies are quite entertaining.
But his excuses don't make the lies go away.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ The central lie from Jamie, which has now been debunked several times, was that Southerners [by whatever name] were drawn with a single shade of black, for hair, eyes and skin, and which uniformly distinguished them from Kemetian.
As has been shown, this is not the case.
Therefore Jamie is a liar, excuses notwithstanding.
[quote]busted troll writes: Are you going to claim Myra Wysinger's pictures are fake as well? [quote]
Why?
Myra completely debunks your claims, much as Nina Jablonski does.
Your attempt to use Myra in support of your ridiculous claims is ultimately a repettition of the same mistake you made with Jablonski.
Myra's site has both brown skinned Medijay
....and jet Black "AE", .... both of which directly contradict you.
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew: Rasol's claims of fake pictures are quite entertaining. The first picture is Myra's, the second is mine. Funny, they both show they are the same shade. Under flash they show some variation. Under normal light, they do not. Are you going to claim Myra Wysinger's pictures are fake as well?
Nice try. My claim was purely on the models, and they still use what in palin daylight looks like the same tone as their hair color. If there is a variation seen by flash, it doesn't change the fact that they were still depicted as darker.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Truth is you never have any evidence for anything, and rely on misquotes, photoshop fraud, and sheer stupidity to provide us with the amusement of laughing at you and by proxy all Eurocentrics, and the pathetic drivel they must/need resort to, in last ditch effort to salvage their ruined racist ideologies.
quote:Originally posted by Jaime-beaten-troll Same paint used for hair and skin. Why the difference if they saw them as the same?
posted
Nice try again. Like I said, in the photo with flash, yes. Barely. On the naked light photos OF MYRA, no you can't. And they are still darker than the Egyptians. Posting a funerary picture from a wall which has already been discussed as symbolic and not like the models which are depicting daily life will not change this. I can also show a depictuon of a golden Egyptian from a mural and it doesn't mean they were golden, but the models are much more accurate.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ROTFL at how this idiot fixates on that one picture of the miniature model of Medjay troops!!-- as if this somehow 'supports' his mixed-up claims! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that his claim was that the same paint was used for hair and skin, which he effectively admits was not true, and yet is still trying to defend -anyway- it's safe to say that his incoherent rantings and desparate apologetics will continue.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
quote:Originally posted by Jaime Same paint used for hair and skin. Why the difference if they saw them as the same?
Actually, I can see a difference in paint color between the hair and skin. It's most apparent in this photo:
quote: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.
^I was reviewing this study earlier and usually I don't have a problem understanding technical jargon, but in this case I'm wondering if I'm interpreting this correctly. Is he saying in direct terms that 11 of the Egyptian samples clustered/showed affinities specifically with post-paleolithic Nubians? I remember him saying something about them showing affinities with "greater North Africa" and to a lesser extent, Southwest Asia.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Which is why such studies can be confusing. Even "Greater North Africa" had heterogeneity/diversity in cranial types.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I have to admit that I see you not doing this a lot and I just want to bring it to your awareness. I think it would help you in your arguments to "polarize" them first..just a tip.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
lol.
Printer-friendly view of this topic