quote:Originally posted by KoKaKoLa: Obviously its because Egyptians are mixed with Nubians.
hassan (2008)
Sure
You're just lying your ass off. Hassan said the COMPLETE opposite. Additionally, the Egyptians Hassan spoke of are Copts who migrated to Sudan. The slides I posted did not even involve those Egyptian immigrants.
Since you brought them up, this is what Hassan had to say about them:
quote:"The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries"
quote:Originally posted by KoKaKoLa: Obviously its because Egyptians are mixed with Nubians.
And they probably have been for thousands of years. Nubia is just upriver of Egypt, so intermingling between the two populations (which weren't that different from each other to begin with) would have been inevitable.
Who's to say the Beja aren't also mixed with Haplogroup B-carrying Nilotes anyway?
Posts: 7094 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
These people are the Anu or pygmies who first ruled Egypt.
The 83% of the pygmies carry haplogroup B. They have left their imprint on the people of Egypt and Nubia
Wikipedia
quote:
DistributionHaplogroup B is localized to sub-Saharan Africa, especially to tropical forests of West-Central Africa. After Y-haplogroup A, it is the second oldest and one of the most diverse human Y-haplogroups. It was the ancestral haplogroup of not only modern Pygmies like the Baka and Mbuti, but also Hadzabe from Tanzania, who often have been considered, in large part because of some typological features of their language, to be a remnant of Khoisan people in East Africa.
According to one study of the Y-DNA of populations in Sudan, haplogroup B is found in approximately 30% (16/53) of Southern Sudanese, 16% (5/32) of local Hausa people, 14% (4/28) of the Nuba of central Sudan, 3.7% (8/216) of Northern Sudanese (but only among Copts and Nubians), and 2.2% (2/90) of Western Sudanese.[5] According to another study, haplogroup B is found in approximately 15% of Sudanese males, including 12.5% (5/40) B2a1a-M109/M152 and 2.5% (1/40) B-M60(xB1a-M146, B2a-M150, B2b-M112).[7]
In Madagascar, haplogroup B has been found in approximately 9% of Malagasy males, including 6% (2/35) B-M60(xB2b-50f2(P)) and 3% (1/35) B2b-50f2(P).[10]
The evidence supports the spread of people from Egpyto-Nubia to West Africa.
This supports the view that the Egyptians and Black Africans are genetically related. This hypothesis led to the corrolary hypothesis that, the Black Africans and Egyptians spoke similar languages.
Chiekh Anta Diop has contributed much to the Afrocentric social sciences. Here we discuss many of Diop's views on using the linguistic sciences to rediscover the ancient history of Blacks.
Chiekh Anta Diop has made important contributions to linguistic theory in relation to African historiography. Diop's work illustrates that it is important for scholars to maintain a focus on the historical and linguistic factors which define the "personnalitè culturelle africaine" (Diop 1991, 227).
Language is the sanctum sanctorum of Diop's Afrocentric historical method. The Diopian view of historiography combines the research of linguistics, history and psychology to interpret the cultural unity of African people. C. Anta Diop is the founder of modern Afrocentricism . Diop (1974,1991) laid the foundations for the Afrocentric idea in education. He laid these foundations using both the historical and anthropological/linguistic methods of research to explain the role of the Blacks in World History.
There are three components in the genetic model: 1) common Physical type, 2) common cultural patterns and 3) genetically related languages. (Winters 1989a) Diop over the years has brought to bear all three of these components in his illumination of Kemetic civilization. (Diop 1974,1977,1978,1991)
The opposition of many Eurocentric scholars to Afrocentric -ism results from white hostility to Diop's idea of a Black Egypt, and the view that Egyptians spoke an African ,rather than Afro-Asiatic language.
Recently, Eurocentric American scholars have alleged to write reviews of Diop's recent book (Diop 1991). Although these reviewers mention the work of Diop in their articles, they never review his work properly, because they lack the ability to understand the many disciplines that Diop has mastered.(Lefkowitz 1992; Baines 1991) For example Lefkowitz (1992) in The New Republic, summarizes Diop (1974) but never presents any evidence to dispute the findings of Diop. The most popular "review" of Diop (1991) was done by Baines (1991) review in the New York Times Book Review. In this "review" Baines (1991) claims that "...the evidence and reasoning used to support the arguments are often unsound".
Instead of addressing the evidence Diop (1991) presents of the African role in the rise of civilization that he alleges is "unsound", he is asking the reader to reject Diop's thesis without refutation of specific evidence presented by Diop of the African contributions to Science and Philosophy. Baines (l991) claims that Diop's Civilization or Barbarism, is not a work of originality, he fails to dispute any factual evidence presented by Diop. Baines (1991) wants the public to accept his general negative comments about Civilization or Barbarism ,based on the fact that he is an Egyptologist. This is not enough, in academia to refute a thesis one must present counter evidence that proves the falseness of a thesis not unsubstantiated rhetoric. We can not accept the negative views of Baines on faith alone. In the recovery of information concerning the African past, Diop promotes semantic anthropology, comparative linguistics and the study of Onomastics. The main thesis of Diop is that typonymy and ethnonymy of Africa point to a common cradle for Paleo-Africans in the Nile Valley (Diop 1978, 67).
Onomastics is the science of names. Diop has studied legends, placenames and religious cult terms to discover the unity of African civilization. Diop (1981, 86) observed that: "An undisputed linguistic relationship between two geographically remote groups of languages can be relevant for the study of migrations. A grammatical (or genetic) relationship if clear enough is never an accident".
As a result, Diop has used toponyms (place-names), anthroponyms (personal names) and ehthnonyms (names of ethnic groups/tribes) to explain the evidence of analogous ethnic (clan) names in West Africa and the Upper Nile (Diop 1991).
In Precolonial Black Africa, Diop used ethnonyms to chart the migrations of African people in West Africa. And in The African Origin of Civilization, Diop used analyses acculturaliste or typological analysis to study the origin and spread of African cultural features from the Nile Valley to West Africa through his examination of toponyms (Diop 1974, 182-183). In the Cultural Unity of Black Africa, Diop discussed the common totems and religious terms many African ethnic groups share (Diop 1978, 124).
LINGUISTIC TAXONOMY
This linguistic research has been based on linguistic classification or taxonomy. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based (Ruhlen 1994). Linguistic taxonomy is necessary for the identification of language families. The determination of language families give us the material to reconstruct the proto-language of a people and discover regular sound correspondences.
There are three major kinds of language classifications: genealogical, typological, and areal. A genealogical classifica-tion groups languages together into language families based on the shared features retained by languages since divergence from the common ancestor or proto-language. An areal classification groups languages into linguistic areas based on shared features acquired by a process of convergence arising from spatial proximity. A typological classification groups languages together into language types by the similarity in the appearance of the structure of languages without consideration of their historical origin and present, or past geographical distribution.
COMPARATIVE METHOD
Diop has used comparative and historical linguistics to illuminate the Unity of African civilization. Diop (1977, xxv) has noted that "The process for the evolution of African languages is clearly apparent; from a far we (have) the idea that Wolof is descendant by direct filiation to ancient Egyptian, but the Wolof, Egyptian and other African languages (are) derived from a common mother language that one can call Paleo-African, the common mother language that one can call Paleo-African, the common African or the Negro- African of L. Homburger or of Th. Obenga."
The comparative method is used by linguists to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of language families and reconstruct the mother language of each family, and (2) determine the forces which affect language. In general, comparative linguists are interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/ correspondence and loan words. Diop is a strong supporter of the comparative method in the rediscovery of Paleo-African. The reconstruction of Paleo-African involves both reconstruction and recognition of regular sound correspondence. The goal of reconstruction is the discovery of the proto-language of African people is the recovery of Paleo-African:
(1) vowels and consonants
(2) specific Paleo-African words
(3) common grammatical elements; and
(4) common syntactic elements.
The comparative method is useful in the reconstruction of Proto-languages or Diop's Paleo-African. To reconstruct a proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the examination of terms which show uniformity. This uniformity leads to the inference that languages are related since uniformity of terms leads to the inference that languages are related since conformity of terms in two or more languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.
HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS
A person's language provides us with evidence of the elements of a group's culture. Diop has noted that reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about a group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologist make precise inferences about a groups culture elements.
Linguistic resemblances denote a historical relationship. This suggest that resemblances in fundamental vocabulary and culture terms can help one reconstruct the culture of the speakers of genetically related languages.
LINGUISTIC CONSTANCY
The rate at which languages change is variable. It appears that linguistic change is culture specific. Consequently, the social organization and political culture of a particular speech community can influence the speed at which languages change.
Based on the history of language change in Europe most linguists believe that the rate of change for all languages is both rapid and constant.(Diagne, 1981,p.238) The idea that all languages change rapidly is not valid for all the World's languages.
African languages change much slower than European languages. (Armstrong, 1962) For example, African vocabulary items collected by Arab explorers over a thousand years ago are analogous to contemporary lexical items.(Diagne,1981, p.239) In addition there are striking resemblances between the ancient Egyptian language and Coptic, and Pharonic Egyptian and African languages.(Diagne, 1981; Diop, 1977; Obenga, 1993)
The political stability of African political institutions has caused languages to change very slowly in Africa. Pawley and Ross (1993) argue that a sedentary life style may account for the conservative nature of a language.
African oral traditions and the eye witness accounts of travelers to Africa, make it clear that African empires although made up of diverse nationalities illustrated continuity. To accomodate the plural nature of African empires Africans developed a Federal system of government. (Niane , 1984) In fact we can not really describe ancient African state systems as empires, since this implies absolute rule or authority in a single individual. This political state of affairs rarely existed in ancient Africa, because in each African speech community local leadership was elected by the people within the community. (Diop, 1987) For example the Egyptians often appointed administrators over the conquered territories from among the conquered people. (Diop ,1991)
The continuity of many African languages may result from the steady state nature of African political systems, and long standing cultural stability since neolithic times. (Diop, 1991 ; Winters 1985) This cultural stability has affected the speed at which African languages change.
In Africa due to the relative stability of socio-political structures and settled life, there has not been enough pressure exerted on African societies as a whole and African speech communities in particular, to cause radical internal linguistic changes within most African languages. Permanent settlements led to a clearly defined system of inheritance and royal succession. These traits led to stability on both the social and political levels. This leads to the hypothesis that linguistic continuity exist in Africa due to the stability of African socio-political structures and cultural systems. This relative cultural stability has led African languages to change more slowly then European and Asian languages. Diop (1974) observed that:
First the evolution of languages, instead of moving everywhere at the same rate of speed seems linked to other factors; such as , the stability of social organizations or the opposite, social upheavals. Understandably in relatively stable societies man's language has changed less with the passage of time.(pp.153-154)
There is considerable evidence which supports the African continuity concept. Dr. Armstrong (1962) noted the linguistic continuity of African languages when he used glottochronology to test the rate of change in Yoruba. Comparing modern Yoruba words with a list of identical terms collected 130 years ago by Koelle , Dr. Armstrong found little if any internal or external changes in the terms. He concluded that:
I would have said that on this evidence African languages are changing with glacial slowness, but it seems to me that in a century a glacier would have changed a lot more than that. Perhaps it would be more in order to say that these languages are changing with geological slowness. (Armstrong, 1962, p.285).
Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself. Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages. Meillet (1926, 17) wrote that:
Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.
THE BLACK AFRICAN ORIGIN OF EGYPT
Diop has contributed much to African linguistics. He was a major proponent of the Dravidian-African relationship (Diop 1974, 116), and the African substratum in Indo-European languages in relationship to cacuminal sounds and terms for social organiza-tion and culture (1974, 115). Diop (1978, 113) also recognized that in relation to Arabic words, after the suppression of the first consonant, there is often an African root.
Diop's major linguistic effort has been the classification of Black African and Egyptian languages . Up until 1977 Diop'smajor area of interest were morphological and phonological similarities between Egyptian and Black African languages. Diop (1977, 77-84) explains many of his sound laws for the Egyptian-Black African connection.
In Parènte Génétique de l'Egyptien pharraonique et des Langues Négro Africaines (PGEPLNA), Diop explains in some detail his linguistic views in the introduction of this book. In PGEPLNA , Diop demonstrates the genetic relationship between ancient Egyptian and the languages of Black Africa. Diop provides thousands of cognate Wolof and Egyptian terms in support of his Black African-Egyptian linguistic relationship.
PALEO-AFRICAN
African languages are divided into Supersets (i.e., a family of genetically related languages, e.g., Niger-Congo) sets, and subsets. In the sets of African languages there are many parallels between phonological terms, eventhough there may be an arbitrary use of consonants which may have a similar sound. The reason for these changes is that when the speakers of Paleo-African languages separated, the various sets of languages underwent separate developments. As a result a /b/ sound in one language may be /p/ or /f/ in a sister language. For example, in African languages the word for father may be baba , pa or fa, while in the Dravidian languages we have appan to denote father. Diop has noted that reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about an ethnic group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language.
Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologists make precise inferences about a linguistic group's cultural elements.
BLACKS IN WEST ASIA
In PGEPLNA Diop makes clear his views on the role of African languages in the rise of other languages. Using archaeological evidence Diop makes it clear that the original West Asians: Elamites and Sumerians were of Black origin (1974, 1977, xxix-xxxvii).
Diop (1974, 1991) advocates the unity of Black Africans and Blacks in West Asia. Winters (1985,1989,1994) has elaborated on the linguistic affinity of African and West Asian languages.
This view is supported by linguistic evidence. For example these languages share demonstrative bases:
Proximate Distant Finite
Dravidian i a u
Manding i a u
Sumerian bi a
Wolof i a u
The speakers of West Asian and Black African languages also share basic culture items: Chief city,village black,burnt
Dravidian cira, ca uru kam
Elamite Salu
Sumerian Sar ur
Manding Sa furu kami,"charcoal'
Nubia sirgi mar
Egyptian Sr mer kemit
Paleo-African *sar *uru *kam
OBENGA
Obenga (1978) gives a phonetic analysis of Black African and Egyptian. He illustrates the genetic affinity of consonants within the Black African (BA) and Egyptian languages especially the occlusive bilateral sonorous, the occlusive nasal apico-dental /n/ and /m/ , the apico-alveolar /r/ and the radical proto-form sa: 'man, female, posterity' in Black Africa.
Language
Agaw asau, aso 'masculine
Sidama asu 'man'
Oromo asa id.
Caffino aso id.
Yoruba so 'produce'
Meroitic s' man
Fonge sunu id.
Bini eso 'someone'
Kikongo sa,se,si 'father'
Swahili (m)zee 'old person'
Egyptian sa 'man'
Manding si,se 'descendant,posterity,family'
Azer se 'individual, person'
Obenga (1978) also illustrated the unity between the verbs 'to come, to be, to arrive':
Language
Egyptian ii, ey Samo, Loma dye
Mbosi yaa Bisa gye
Sidama/Omo wa Wolof nyeu
Caffino wa Peul yah, yade
There is t =/= d, highlight the alternation patterns of many Paleo-African consonants including b =/= p, l =/= r ,and g =/= k.
The Egyptian term for grain is 0 sa #. This corresponds to many African terms for seed,grain:
Galla senyi
Malinke se , si
Sumerian se
Egyptian sen 'granary'
Kannanda cigur
Bozo sii
Bambara sii
Daba sisin
Somali sinni
Loma sii
Susu sansi
Oromo sanyi
Dime siimu
Egyptian ssr 'corn'
id. ssn 'lotus plant'
id. sm 'herb, plant'
id. isw 'weeds'
In conclusion, Diop has done much to encourage the African recovery of their history. His theories on linguistics has inspired many African scholars to explain and elaborate the African role in the history of Africa and the world. This has made his work important to our understanding of the role of Black people in History.
Here we have shown the methods Anta Diop has used to rediscover the long and great history of Africans in Africa and the world. This methods allow us to reconstruct the Paleo-African culture formerly practiced by Africans in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
It also shows that West Africans and Cushitic speakers share common terms for the principal items of culture because they were all part of the Pan-African Egyptian civilization.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egypt was a Pan-African civilization that included West Africans. In fact many of the sothern Nomes were probably made up of West African populations.
Inyotef 1
Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land. Welmers in "Niger-Congo Mande", Current trends in Linguistics 7 (1971), pp.113-140,explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley (p.119). He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago.
In support of this theory he discusses the dogs of the Niger-Congo speakers. This is the unique barkless Basenji dogs which live in the Sudan and Uganda today, but were formerly recorded on Egyptian monuments (Wlemers,p.119). According to Welmers the Basanji, is related to the Liberian Basenji breed of the Kpelle and Loma people of Liberia. Welmers believes that the Mande took these dogs with them on their migration westward. The Kpelle and Loma speak Mande languages.
He believes that the region was unoccupied when the Mande migrated westward. In support of this theory Welmers' notes that the Liberian Banji dogs ,show no cross-breeding with dogs kept by other African groups in West Africa, and point to the early introduction of this cannine population after the separation of the Mande from the other Niger-Congo speakers in the original upper Nile homeland for this population. As a result, he claims that the Mande migration occured before these groups entered the region.
Homburger made it clear that the Fula language was related to the Egyptians of the 12th Dynasty. This is interesting because we find that at this time new rulers came to power in Egypt from the South. This period is often called the Middle Kingdom.
Many of these “southerners” probably included many people who later settled West Africa. As noted earlier the marker for the spread of the Niger-Congo speakers is the basanji dog. The hieroglyphic for "dog," in fact, as evidenced on a stele from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, derives from the basenji. In just a few strokes, the engraver captures the key characteristics: pricked ears, curled tail and graceful carriage. It is probably no coincidence that the Basanji was see as the principal dog it probably represents the coming of power of the Niger-Congo speakers in ancient Egypt.
We know that in African societies great ancestors are made into “gods”. This is interesting because Wally has discovered a number of African ethnonyms among the gods of Egyptian nomes.
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
Ethnic names in the Mdu Ntr
Tutsi Tutsi "the assembled gods"; "all of them (gods)"
Akan Akan - the name of a god Akaniu - a class of gods like Osiris
Fante Fante - "he of the nose" - a name of Thoth - one of the 42 judges in the Hall of Osiris ("Shante" in modern Egyptian)
Hausa Hosa - a singing god
Yoruba Ourbaiu - great of souls, a title of gods or kings Ouruba - Great God of soul
The permutations of names of such folks as the Wolof or the Fulani are so many, that it requires the effort of those who speak the language, to properly interpret the names -ie, Djoloff, Oulof, etc. and then look for their meanings in Budge's dictionary...
It would be quite interesting if these nomes were formerly prominent southern nomes who gained prominence once the Inyotefs came to power.
Between 2258 2052 BC civil war broke out among the nobles of Egypt. During this period of disunity there was much suffering in the land and many of the fine cultural developments of the Old Kingdoms were discarded or rarely practiced. This period of chaos is called the "First Intermediate Period". A person who lived during this hard time named Iperwer, wrote Great and humble say: "I wish I might die". Little children cry out: "I never should have been born". Also during this time Lower Egypt was invaded by Asian people who ruled there for a long time.
During this period of decline it was the Southerners who made it possible for the raise of Egypt back into a world power. These Southerners were called "Inyotefs", they lived around a city in Upper Egypt called "Thebes". Inyotef I founded the 11th Dynasty and made Thebes his capital.Inyotef declared himself king c 2125-2112 BC.
Inyotef I opposed Ankhtify of Heracleopolitan who he defeated. It was Inyotef who consolidated power in the south. Inyotef II (Wahankh) also fought the Heracleopolitans. He loved dogs especially the basenji.
Egyptian Basenji Dog Hieroglyph
I believe that some of the southern nomes led by the Inyotefs were composed of people who later migrated to West Africa after the Romans came to power. The Thebians were closely united with the Nubians.
Inyotef I was the father Mentuhotep I. Several of the wives of Mentuhotep II were Nubians. Under Mentuhotep, the delta chiefs were defeated and Egypt was united again into one country.
Mentuhotep
Under the Amenemhet I, of the Xllth dynasty the capital was moved form Thebes to Lisht near Memphis. This dynasty and those thereafter are called the Middle Kingdom.
MIDDLE KINGDOM
It took strong leadership for the Egyptians to re establish the greatness of Egypt and the establishment of safe and secure borders.
The rulers during the Middle Kingdom were mostly men from the military. They frequently made raids into foreign lands in search of booty. And for the first time in Egyptian history a permanent army was founded to protect Egypt and keep it strong.
Amon became the major God of the Egyptians during the Middle Period. Amon was recognized at this time as the God of all Gods. This Amon was also called Amma by the Proto Saharans.
It is interesting to note that the Mande and other West African people like the Dogon and Dravidians worshipped the god Amma.
The fact that Mande, Wolof and Fula are related to Egyptian is probably due to the fact that when the Inyotefs took over Egypt the ancestors of these groups live in southern Egypt/Upper Kush. This would explain 1) the relationship between the Fula and Egyptian language of the 12th Dynasty 2) the introduction of the worship of Aman to the Egyptians a god worshipped by many Niger-Congo speakers, 3) the presence of Egyptian gods for selected nomes bearing West African ethnonyms and 4)the love of the basenji dog by the 12th Dynasty Egyptians.
Egypt was indeed a Pan-African civilization
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde, could you please stop reitorating your 5 page long posts? You've already posted that on the previous page of this thread, and it makes navigating through the thread a pain.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Clyde, could you please stop reitorating your 5 page long posts? You've already posted that on the previous page of this thread, and it makes navigating through the thread a pain.
No. Some people may only read this page so it is good policy to repost major points of the discussion so new readers will become aware of the major issues of the present debate.
Posters who already read this material will skip it.
quote:Originally posted by KoKaKoLa: the phenotype of the ancient egyptians is the complete opposite of the west africans anyway its supported by the facts that modern egyptians and sudanese dont cluster with western africans, genetically speaking
Clearly the ancient Egyptians were more closely to Beja-speakers than to contemporary West Africans. What is false is that they had "Eurasian features" as they grouped with other Africans before they did "Eurasians", and differed markedly from Eurasians in post-cranial characteristics. "Genetically-speaking", West Africans and East Africans are definitely related. I have no idea where you got the idea that they weren't.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for your Eye Opening post that shows that Egyptians, East Africans and West Africans are related genetically etc.
Kola is an Joker, he tries to claim the phenotype of Egyptians being the opposite of West Africans, when we have the Fulani, Mossi, Tuareg, Igbo Etc who have phenotypes no different from some Egyptians and Nubians. Then he post a pic of South African, and tries to pass it off as Yorubas...What an Joker. Also Kola has not shown ONE study that agrees with him and he has yet to post the Pygmies in Ethiopia.
I really have no clue why it is so hard for Africans to get along like Brothers, We see divison among them and hate filled posts directed at West East etc. This Kola guy is an East Africancentrist who thinks West Africans have no Claim to Egypt but he does because he thinks that Punt was in the Horn.
We also Know that Majority of Ancient West Africans, lived closer in the sahara at the time of AE and they have traits that link them to what is Found in Egypt and Sudan.
Last thing is that Kola has yet to show us Pyramids in East Africa, like there is in West Africa. Hopefully he will start showing us these things if he wants to be taken serious.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^None of the picture/photo eyeball anthropology means anything. What counts is the scientific data of tropical limb proportions which are deeply embedded genetically. On this basis the ancient Egyptians cluster much more closely with fellow tropical Africans than Europeans or "Middle easterners." Nothing will change this fact.
The so-called "Beja type" is not only vague but dubious. Can anyone scientifically identify what is a "Beja type"?
But if they wanna do pictures, there are plenty of pictures showing Egyptians resemble tropical Africans..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The Egyptian/Beja connection is definitely there. Toby Wilkinson and others are on to something in finding the roots to Egyptian civilization in the Eastern desert (Beja territory). No surprise Kendall and the people at the Oriental Institute think Qustul comes from the same tradition.
This is true if the Beja or their direct ancestors inhabited the region or are somehow the same as or close relatives of the ancient Medjay. I have noticed the Eastern Desert connection also considering that the early centers of Naqada seemed to be associated with the ithyphallic god Min who is known as 'The Lord of the Eastern Desert'.
As for the Qustul culture being derived from the area. Well area of the Eastern Desert that Wilkinson uncovered lay in the south and thus the southeast of Egypt which is close to Nubian Qustul. However, he did not uncover any proto-hieroglyphs in the area like those found in the Qustul region, and even pharaonic motifs in the rock carvings in the area such as the Nile boat and ka symbol with upraised arms appear earlier in Lower Nubia with the earliest evidence of the former (the boat) being found farther south in the Khartoum Mesolithic. Indeed Wilkinson attributes the pastoral culture of these eastern desert people with Nilotic people in Sudan and other areas which is why I don't get his contradictory claims of 'black' Nubians etc. In fact it is such cultural commonalities as well as the dating of the eastern desert art to the earliest time period of Naqada I that leads me to believe Naqada along with Qustul are branches of the Sudanese neolithic and that the Qustul culture is older since it displays evidence of royal cult including complex burials before Naqada did.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KoKaKoLa: Didnt they call it Ta Netjer? Doesnt Ta Netjer means land of the Gods/Ancestors?
They imported Myhrr,Frankinscence, ivory and pigmies from there. Pnt was depicted with wild animals common to Africa. Myrrh is only common to East Africa & the arabian peninsula East Africans always exported those kind of produts (ivory, frankinscence)...
The puntites looked like the Ancient Egyptians. just like the Beja look like the Somalis and the Oromo..
there was 2 ways to go there : road or boat (via the Red Sea)
this is obvious.
Even if the Egyptians did have ancestry farther south, that did not mean they were same as modern Cushitic speakers or their ancestors. Related yes but not the same.
quote:Cushitic refers to a language group. yes.
but all the cushitic speakers LOOK the same and they have all the same CULTURE. The appearance of the Ancient Egyptians is the same with the Cushitic Speakers.
This is a broad generalization. There is and likely was no one conformed look for Cushitic speakers which ancient Egyptians were not even! Even the Egyptians varied in looks from region to region!
quote:Ancient Egyptians WERE not related to Pigmies nor West Africans.
Of course they were. They share a number of lineages in common as well as traditions which can only be explained via the Sahara when it was once green and fertile.
quote:The REDDISH BROWNSKIN they have is common to CUSHITIC SPEAKERS. The Braids & AFROS they have is again common to Cushitic speakers.
More nonsensical stereotyping. There are reddish-brown skinned people in West Africa with afros and braids as well.
quote:i dont know what is going with you, but from their apparence, their culture & their language , they were clearly of cushitic speakers type.
I believe that Ancient Egyptian is a mixed language of the language of the Lower Egyptian who i suppose descent from the Natufians + Cushitic.
Pan africanists can kill themselves
Nothing is going on with me but I could ask the same of YOU since what you believe is irrelevant to the facts!
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Just to throw a Wrench into some peoples arguements, Were There Pygmies in The Horn region of East Africa?
I'm thinking you think that the Horn was where the Egyptians pointed to as saying they came from.
One thing we can safely say, is that Punt was not from Arabia, Punt was probably in the Area closest to either Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Uganda since this is where we hear Pygmies were Living in Africa back in those days. To make statements that Punt was found in the Somali regions, can also be probable, but we really never hear of Pygmies coming from that part of East Africa.
Don't take this as disrespect Kola, I just want to pick your brain and see if you have any substance to your ideas.
Peace
Indeed, let see if you have any substance.
Are Chad and Uganda bordered by the Red Sea or Any sea? Last time i checked, there are Pigmies in Ethiopa..
There are Pygmies in Ethiopia? Not that I doubt the claim but I just haven't heard of Pygmies present in that country. There are Pygmies who are native to Uganda called Twa and Uganda is awfully close to Ethiopia. In fact there is evidence of Twa presence especially in the past in southern Sudan right next to Ethiopia so the possibility exists.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It would help if you'd verbalize, what exactly you're debating, and what issue you have with what was said. Are you uncomfortable with the fact that they had characteristics in common with Pygmies?
Not at all. Actually, I was going to ask you the same-- to verbalize exactly what YOU mean. Are you acknowledging the clustering together with Pygmies as a pathetic attempt of refuting the data that Egyptians were Africans or are you trying to make some valid point about the skeletal builds??
quote:Not exactly sure what would be funny about that, but PC II is related to overall size. As is implied by my initial post, re: Equidistantly to Sudanese groups, the two flanking dots represent ''Nubians'' and ''Sudanese'', meaning Kushites.
I see. You are being serious, then nevermind. I still don't like how the author (Holliday?) labels a 'Sudanese' group and a 'Kushite' group. Last time I checked Kushites WERE Sudanese which makes me wonder what he considers 'Sudanese'. I guess southern Sudanese, even though such groups ranged farther north in the ancient past.
Can you explain to me the chart or at least cite the paper it comes from??
quote:I’m not sure whether Egyptians are closer to Pygmies than to American blacks on that chart. The chart obviously depicts crural index, what’s with it?
The chart shows a correlation between mean annual temperature and limb proportions in general. I'm not sure which measurements the chart is based since I merely copied the chart from another thread, but it looks similar to a chart based on Trinkhaus's findings also on limb-length proportions and climate adaptation with striking differences between Neanderthals and early modern humans.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Let me start off by saying that No one should kill themselves.
Moving on, What we know about AE(Ancient Egypt) is that there culture derived from East African AND the Sahara regions. We have the Black Mummy that showed the mummification process that Egypt is Known for. Unless you have proof that East Africans were mummifying, this shows that AE was linked to regions that are in the west African region of Africa.
We also have Pyramids from West Africa, Are there any in East Africa outside of Egypt and Sudan?
does not this statue from Yorubas remind you of the Bes images from Egypt?
^Bes
What can be safely said about AE is that they were a coming together of Saharan and Nilotic Africans.
Peace
Ancient Egyptians share many genetic lineages as well as cultural traditions with West Africans. Genetic lineages such as paternal E1b1a, maternal L3i, and autosomes like Benin HBS all point to West African influence. The Egyptians also had many traditions found and practiced in West Africans that is not found in East Africa 'Cushitic speaking' or not! Traditions such as wearing wigs including wigs made from plant fiber that give a 'straight haired' appearance, animal masks worn in certain cermonies, grass aprons or skirts also worn during certain ceremonies, fertility paddle dolls for girls, having statues specifically busts of dead ancestors in the home, the belief in a person having 5 or more spirit parts etc. etc.
The only explanation for this would be a shared heritage in the Sahara when it was once green and fertile. In fact archaeology shows that West Africa was sparsely inhabited during the Holocene Wet phase with the ancestors of most West Africans living in the Sahara at that time when it was green and fertile.
The problem with Coo-Coo-cola is that he is stuck on this East African Cushitic pride (perhaps supremacy) scheme! Ancient Egypt may not be 'Pan African' NO African culture is, but it is STILL very much African and more culturally diverse than Coo-Coo believes!
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Koo-Koo-KoLa: West africans do not ressemble Ancient Egyptians
They had eurasian features..
Now I know the kook has lost it!
West Africans with so-called "Eurasian" features:
quote:(light-skinned) Beja girls
(light-skinned) Mauritanian girls
quote:queen tiye
beja girl
Actually a better comparison to Queen Tiye would be this Beja woman here.
All your comparisons to 'Yoruba' are strawman arguments! Besides as Sundjata pointed out one of your pictures of alleged 'Yoruba' are actually South Africans!
quote: completely ridiculous
The phenotype of the ancient egyptians is the complete opposite of the west africans anyway its supported by the facts that modern egyptians and sudanese dont cluster with western africans, genetically speaking
The only thing completely ridiculous are your claims above which are founded on nothing more narrow-minded stereotypes about western Africans as well as an ignorance of ancient history that connects western Africans to eastern Africans as well as northern Africans to Sub-Sahara!
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you acknowledging the clustering together with Pygmies as a pathetic attempt of refuting the data that Egyptians were Africans
Scratching my head. How exactly does comparing Egyptians to Pygmies make Egyptians NOT African, when their stature, among other things, is obviously associated with tropical rainforests.
quote:I still don't like how the author (Holliday?) labels a 'Sudanese' group and a 'Kushite' group. Last time I checked Kushites WERE Sudanese which makes me wonder what he considers 'Sudanese'. I guess southern Sudanese, even though such groups ranged farther north in the ancient past.
He doesn’t have a Sudanese and a Kushite group. He has a Nubian and a Sudanese group, the latter being remains from Kerma (Kushites). Most likely, his naming has something to do with Modern Egypt’s borders moving down a notch, making the Northern polity (Nubia) part of modern Egypt, not (or to a lesser extent) Sudan. Hence, Nubians and Sudanese.
quote:Can you explain to me the chart or at least cite the paper it comes from??
Already did. Cited the title, and you said ‘’so what, we’ve discussed it many times’’. You look for it in my previous post. Like I said, the 2nd component is related to overall size, the first, is related to linearity, and it (1st component) constitutes a spectrum from more ‘’tropical’’ builds to more ‘’cold adapted’’ builds.
BTW, you do know that I'm Kalonji, right?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The better question to ask, is whether you are serious, in masquerading those ladies as proto-type Eastern Desert Africans. So where is are your ancient light brown ''dravidian like'' Beja? lol.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Genetics proved that Egyptians dont cluster with west africans
Lucotte's 27%, E-M2 carrying Modern Egyptian subsample, doesn't cluster Haplotypically with E-M2 carrying West Africans? What about that 40% B-M60 carrying upper Egyptian subsample. They don't cluster haplotypically with M-60 carrying West and Central Africans?
The only thing you've proved, is that you're uninformed.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Scratching my head. How exactly does comparing Egyptians to Pygmies make Egyptians NOT African, when their stature, among other things, is obviously associated with tropical rainforests.
I thought you were trying to say such a comparison means the study is flawed.
quote:He doesn’t have a Sudanese and a Kushite group. He has a Nubian and a Sudanese group, the latter being remains from Kerma (Kushites). Most likely, his naming has something to do with Modern Egypt’s borders moving down a notch, making the Northern polity (Nubia) part of modern Egypt, not (or to a lesser extent) Sudan. Hence, Nubians and Sudanese.
Sorry. I meant NUBIAN not 'Kushite' since the 'Nub' obviously meant Nubian. As for 'polity' Nubia itself is not a polity but a region that is in Sudan as it is in southern Egypt. Kush would be a polity.
quote: Cited the title, and you said ‘’so what, we’ve discussed it many times’’. You look for it in my previous post. Like I said, the 2nd component is related to overall size, the first, is related to linearity, and it (1st component) constitutes a spectrum from more ‘’tropical’’ builds to more ‘’cold adapted’’ builds.
BTW, you do know that I'm Kalonji, right?
Yes, I realize this now-- that you're Kalonji! LOL
I've been on vacation and haven't had much time to post here and haven't been keeping up.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I've been on vacation and haven't had much time to post here and haven't been keeping up.
No problem bro, sh!t happens. Any ideas on how to interpret that post cranial data?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KoKaKoLa: Have you seen the studies of Arredi & Wood about E-M2?
E-M2 map of Rosa
What was the Y chromosone profile of the sampled Egyptians in that study?
I've said it many times and I'll say it again. (Ancestors of) Pan grave Nubians (Medjay) were not a major factor in the peopling of Predynastic Egypt. I don't care what others say. Their teeth were large, unlike that of the Ancient Egyptians.
It is in the Western Desert, and on the Upper Egyptian border where we see for the first time evidence of the presence of the factors that reduce tooth size. Those advanced Western desert Africans later moved in on the already present, and less advanced Egyptian Nile Valley Africans.
The Western Desert emptied out during the Predynastic, and we see increases in population size along the Nile Valley around the exact same time, indicating that those Africans indeed settled along the Nile. The same can't be said about the Eastern Desert, which has always been inhabited from Pred, dyn and to present times. Dream on KokaKola, the facts speak for themselves.
Even one of the West African variants of sickle cell Anemia, which was detected in predynastic Ancient Egyptians mummies, and potentially in King Tut, is the most prevalent west of the Nile Valley, in Western Sudan. Indeed, in the very region I just mentioned, that went on to donate the substantial numbers of people.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Medjay ....Blemmyes.. Yeah i know. the Beja were part of Ancient Egypt themselves.
The Ancient Egyptians and the Medjay were sister populations, seperated for millenia, which is evinced by their teeth. It pains you, doesn't it?
quote:Benin sickle cell haplotype is also found in Southeastern europe where west africans genes are almost inexistant. it doesnt imply a west african origin.
The argument was used to silence the whole argument that Beja and Somali people were major factors in populating Egypt. Clearly it worked, because that argument you initially advocated is nowhere to be seen. I WOULD ask you what you mean with ''it'' doesn't imply a West African origin, but like how the other trolls operate, that request would likely go unanswered, and substituted with another round of picture spams, wherein West Africans are pitted against East Africans.
quote:Tut was definetely NOT a west african.
Strawman. Who do you think you're talking to, that you think you have to tell me that Tut was an Egyptian?
quote:Some beja can trace their lineage back to the pharaohs of the "New Kingdom" (who looked Beja by the way) and i dont think they are related to west africans.
Nobody cares what you think. Not if you profess to think that E-M78 carrying Beja's can ever be ''not related'', haplotypically, to E carrying West Africans, whatever their specific downstream mutation is. How can two Africans, who are united by the Pn2 transition, not be related, haplotypically? Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Medjay ....Blemmyes.. Yeah i know. the Beja were part of Ancient Egypt themselves.
The Ancient Egyptians and the Medjay were sister populations, seperated for millenia, which is evinced by their teeth. It pains you, doesn't it?
Hmm.. Not trying to rain on your parade, but I'm genuinely curious as to what studies were carried out on the pan-grave skeletons that would imply this? I ask because it's hard to imagine geographically contiguous populations (AE and ancestral Beja) being "separated for millenia".
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Hmm.. Not trying to rain on your parade, but I'm genuinely curious as to what studies were carried out on the pan-grave skeletons that would imply this? I ask because it's hard to imagine geographically contiguous populations (AE and ancestral Beja) being "separated for millenia".
What I'm basing it on:
quote:No domestic architectural features are known from the Pan Grave Culture. Camps only display open-air features. The physical population type is very specific, showing long isolation and archaic African features such as long jaws with large teeth, the third molars being the biggest. They were taller than the Egyptians and had strong muscular features. This made them very suitable for the warrior profession. Often weapons of Egyptian typology such as daggers and battle axes, as well as bowstrings and arrow tips are found in their graves. This documents the employment of those people as warriors of the 13th and early 17th Dynasties. Records of the 13th Dynasty show different Medjay delegations being received at court.
They were taller than the Egyptians and had strong muscular features.
^This contrasts sharply with (predynastic) Egyptians, especially Badarians, who are noted for their frail builds.
Clearly, seperate evolutionary paths implicated in these differences. Wouldn't you say so, KokaKola?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yea, I ran across that website as well and still find the statement to be curious. Of course they were nomadic pastoralists, which can obviously explain their superior height and musculature (they drank more milk and lead a more mobile/rugged existence) and larger teeth (as their diet did not differ as much from their ancestral diet, we shouldn't expect as much mass reduction of the teeth), so I don't find the explanation that they must have underwent a period of "long isolation" (at least to the extent that they went on a separate "evolutionary path") particularly convincing. Kokakola, while generally misguided also makes a good point because even that very website mentions how pan-grave culture extended into Egypt proper. These people seem to have just been a segment of a larger population who preserved the semi-nomadic life-style of their forbears.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how you can agree with the idea that food processing hadn't impacted on Medjay teeth much, yet at the same time, maintain that its not convincing that there were no differing evolutionary paths for the populations who went on to form the backbone of Ancient Egypt, and the ancestors of the Medjay.
Grain consumption, and the use of sickles are recorded at VERY early dates (Qadan culture). There are tons of things that I can mention, that would impact those Africans differently, evolutionarily speaking, than Eastern Desert Medjay, who, as you've just agreed upon, generally remained nomadic pastoralists.
The same for stature. Of course those things have their evolutionary explanations, but those differences wouldn't be as pronounced if repeated back and forth gene flow was sustained between, lets say, Badarians and pre-pan grave Egypto-Sudanese.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The problem is that those aren't evolutionary processes that require so much time to manifest what are clearly physiological changes associated with life-style ("micro-evolution driven by dietary change" as opposed to a "separate evolutionary path"). Grain consumption wouldn't have been the driver as indeed the earliest Afrasans were collectors of wild grains yet Carlson and van Gerven's dental reduction hypothesis hinges on the shift to sedentary agriculture where an ARRAY of different agricultural food sources, requiring less energy to chew and process, facilitated the reduction rather rapidly (which is why Irish and Turner thought there was a complete population replacement in the Egyptian and lower "Nubian" Nile valley).
More importantly, the claim was made that the ancestral Beja were not influential in peopling Egypt and were "separated for millenia", yet pan-grave cemeteries are found in Egypt. Indeed, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that they belonged to a community that had always inhabited the eastern side of the lower Nile valley. In fact, it is surmised by Ehret that the eastern side of the Nile valley would have been the migration path of the earliest Afrasan-speakers leaving the Horn, so yes, ancestral Beja-speakers diverged and isloated themselves but they would have been a part of the Egyptian empire, just as they were a part of Kerma and Meroe. The assimilation process would also see to it that those who did people Egypt in its earliest phases, lost the "archaic" features that distinguished them along with the rest of the larger population as they shifted life-style.
BTW, if you don't mean what I think you mean by "separate evolutionary path" (i.e. "genetic divergence"), then feel free to clarify.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Also.. Tuaregs (descendants of the Lybians) shows affinities with the Beja..via mtDNA.. funny no?
Ignoring your West Africa bashing, this seems to be an astute observation, actually. Tishkoff's data on autosomal gene frequencies also associate the Kel Tamasheq with the Beja. Using them as a proxy to estimate ancient Egyptian variation (especially in the south, as they would have been sandwiched in between these two ancestral populations), therefore seems quite intuitive. Difficulty will rest however, on establishing what the baseline variation was and how much the two populations differ from their ancestors (that the modern and ancient variation in Egypt is similar, but qualitatively different, is a given).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:^The problem is that those aren't evolutionary processes that require so much time to manifest what are clearly physiological changes associated with life-style ("micro-evolution driven by dietary change" as opposed to "separate evolutionary path").
Again, I’m not being difficult here, but I fail to see what is the difference between those two things I’ve highlighted in your post, aside from your fancy anthropological terminology. The end result is the same; one party partakes in/is exposed to certain factors and the other party isn’t (or to a lesser degree). How does that not translate into two evolutionary paths?
quote:Grain consumption wouldn't have been the driver as indeed the earliest Afrasans were collectors of wild grains yet Carlson and van Gerven's dental reduction hypothesis hinges on the shift to sedentary agriculture where an ARRAY of different agricultural food sources,
Can you lay out to me, how what you said applies to what I’ve said, in that post you just responded to? I know you agree with the idea that a population whose ancestors have been consuming grain for a long time, are impacted differently than population who remain pastoralists, I mean, this is common sense. I don’t see how what you wrote, follows from what I’ve said.
quote:More importantly, the claim was made that the ancestral Beja were not influential in peopling Egypt and were "separated for millenia", yet pan-grave cemeteries are found in Egypt.
Indeed, they were separated for millennia, populationally speaking. I don’t see how Medjay burials in Egypt negate that fact, especially since those burials took place after the two populations differentiated. Notice that I am talking about them as populations, migration of individuals does not refute anything I’ve said, since I did not say, ‘’every single individual in both populations is, and remains separated for millennia’’. I’m talking about both populations as two abstract concepts
quote:yes, ancestral Beja-speakers diverged and isloated themselves but they would have been a part of the Egyptian empire,
^Come on Sundiata, you know you don’t disagree with anything I’ve said.
quote:The assimilation process would also see to it that those who did people Egypt in its earliest phases, lost the "archaic" features that distinguished them along with the rest of the larger population as they shifted life-style.
…..But then again, those assimilating Eastern Desert Africans, can’t really be called Eastern Desert Africans anymore, can they? The very word ‘’assimilation’’ denotes that you’d simply call them ‘’Egyptians’’. I presume you agree with this, but even if you don’t, what those migrants do, won’t affect the population they originated in. In other words, those migrants assimilate, but the environmental factors that impact both populations remain the same, and so, the ‘’evolutionary paths’’ are maintained.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Also.. Tuaregs (descendants of the Lybians) shows affinities with the Beja..via mtDNA.. funny no?
Ignoring your West Africa bashing, this seems to be an astute observation, actually. Tishkoff's data on autosomal gene frequencies also associate the Kel Tamasheq with the Beja. Using them as a proxy to estimate ancient Egyptian variation (especially in the south, as they would have been sandwiched in between these two ancestral populations), therefore seems quite intuitive. Difficulty will rest however, on establishing what the baseline variation was and how much the two populations differ from their ancestors (that the modern and ancient variation in Egypt is similar, but qualitatively different, is a given).
Of course this is simply reciting ''common knowledge''. The troll is mistaking posters on the forum for being idiots, and I think its a shame you don't see through that.
This observation has been discussed many times on ES, even way before I even was a member. Researchers other than Tishkoff have noted this relationship as well. I find it funny that this KokaKola character wants to inform ES posters of the fact that King Tut wasn't a West African, and that it is ''funny'' or ''remarkable'' that Tuareg and Beja are closely related.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I actually have no negative aversion to most of what Kokakola has typed here. The kid is obviously misguided (as I'd clearly mentioned already) but I'm simply commenting on what I took to be a good observation on his/her part (keeping in mind that he/she isn't a long-standing member of ES). He also made a good argument against you about the sustained ancestral Beja presence in Egypt so the kid isn't exactly dumb. Either way, you shouldn't feel threatened, in the grand scheme of things I find that both of you hold extreme views in this case (the ancient Egyptians were of Beja "type" vs. the ancient Egyptians were separated from Beja-speakers for millenia and underwent a separate "evolutionary path").
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Again, I’m not being difficult here, but I fail to see what is the difference between those two things I’ve highlighted in your post, aside from your fancy anthropological terminology. The end result is the same; one party partakes in/is exposed to certain factors and the other party isn’t (or to a lesser degree). How does that not translate into two evolutionary paths?
This isn't "my own" fancy terminology, they are Keita's words. As stated, one denotes a complete genetic divergence, the other simply involves the acquisition of new traits via some discriminating process. For instance, you also emphasized that the Medjay were taller and more muscular. Well the Khoi Khoi historically have been described as taller and more muscular than the San, yet the only essential difference between them is that the former is heavily involved in pastoral subsistence. By contrast, Biaka Pygmies are shorter than the historical Khoi Khoi because they went on a separate "evolutionary path".
See the difference? That's why I edited my statement (don't know if you caught it) in an attempt at receiving some clarification on what you meant because clearly they aren't the same thing.
quote:Can you lay out to me, how what you said applies to what I’ve said, in that post you just responded to? I know you agree with the idea that a population whose ancestors have been consuming grain for a long time, are impacted differently than population who remain pastoralists, I mean, this is common sense. I don’t see how what you wrote, follows from what I’ve said.
Their life-style and diet was still more similar to their pre-agricultural forbears. As rehearsed, the post-Pleistocene dental reduction hypothesis has little to do with wild grain consumption. In fact, the epipaleolithic grain-eating communities along the Nile still possessed the underived dental patterns that authors observed to be most similar to West Africans.
quote:I don’t see how Medjay burials in Egypt negate that fact, especially since those burials took place after the two populations differentiated. Notice that I am talking about them as populations, migration of individuals does not refute anything I’ve said, since I did not say, ‘’every single individual in both populations is, and remains separated for millennia’’. I’m talking about both populations as two abstract concepts
I wasn't negating anything, I was questioning your attempt at negation. You claimed teeth negated the possibility that ancestral Beja-speakers were influential in the earlier peopling of Egypt based on dental patterns. You used as your evidence, supposed skeletal data retrieved from pan-grave cemeteries. Yet if pan-grave cemeteries/culture extended into Egypt proper, then I fail to see how data from the pan-grave burials can be used to argue against the notion that practitioners of said culture descend from populations that were always there. It would have to be shown that they weren't, which would be difficult since common knowledge dictates that Beja-speakers have always occupied the Eastern deserts of the lower Nile (which extended into Egypt).
It is also possible that by and large, the sample/s used is/are not representative of ancient Beja-speakers (no way to tell as the source isn't peer-reviewed).
quote:^Come on Sundiata, you know you don’t disagree with anything I’ve said.
It's just not a huge disagreement. I simply requested clarity on your idea that ancestral-Beja speakers wouldn't have been influential in the peopling of ancient Egypt based on the tooth size of the pan-grave inhabitants. I obviously disagree because I believe they were present since the pre-dynastic and have written so above. Indeed, we've been in indirect disagreement the entire time which is why I asked for you to lay out your case. You can easily persuade me with the right evidence.
quote:…..But then again, those assimilating Eastern Desert Africans, can’t really be called Eastern Desert Africans anymore, can they? The very word ‘’assimilation’’ denotes that you’d simply call them ‘’Egyptians’’. I presume you agree with this, but even if you don’t, what those migrants do, won’t affect the population they originated in. In other words, those migrants assimilate, but the environmental factors that impact both populations remain the same, and so, the ‘’evolutionary paths’’ are maintained.
Of course they'd have been "Egyptian" and I'm happy that you acknowledge that being one isn't predicated upon tooth size. The point is that they'd have formed a segment of a population that was ancestral to modern Beja-speakers, hence, dental patterns cannot be used to rule out who was influential in populating the early state. Their very presence in Egypt contradicts the claim that they'd have been separated from Egyptians for "millenia". That just seems extreme, which compelled my inquiry.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^BTW, I don't want to turn this into a back and fourth display. Initially I was (and still am to some extent) truly just confused by that statement. The above tit for tac would suggest a more hostile disagreement than it implies, which is why I think I'll refrain from responding with segmented quotation blocs as it becomes easier to lose track of the larger point by focusing on inane semantic details. At the same time, we can also just agree to disagree because if you're only going by the dental patterns of the pan-grave skeletons, then I don't think I'll ever be convinced by that argument (was just making sure as I didn't realize that this was all that you were basing that statement on).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Either way, you shouldn't feel threatened, in the grand scheme of things I find that both of you hold extreme views in this case (the ancient Egyptians were of Beja "type" vs. the ancient Egyptians were separated from Beja-speakers for millenia and underwent a separate "evolutionary path"). 
Printer-friendly view of this topic