quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ If by "they" you mean the Eurocentrics, their premise is basically the old 'Dynastic Race Theory' that Egyptian civilization was founded by non-African Asiatics. Now, as I'm aware I haven't seen any genomic samples from the Archaic Period (Pyramid Age) much less predynastic times. But to play devil's advocate, even if we are to assume that Egyptian civilization was founded by Natufians, this said people were very distinct from later populations that we know as 'Asiatic' in historical times. As shown in the autosomal distances with modern Mahra being closest to them. But apparently starting from the Middle Kingdom, there was further influx of Asiatic far post-Natufian of course (Hyksos?).
Egyptian Civilization was NOT founded by Natufians
It was founded by Erythraics and Nilo Saharans. So there is no need to play devils advocate.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is still, in this cline, a not so big gap between the Egyptians and the Nubians, Sudanese and Horn Africans (I’m citing here both modern and ancient DNA samples), which will possibly be filled in the future by yet unsampled biogeographic groups from Egypt and Sudan.
Guy seems on point from what I've read so far. The gap is not filled because of what I described as 'modularity' earlier. Nubians with 'Natufian' but with non-indigenous other components from the south or the west (Maghreb/ANA and presumably also Takarkori) are not going to fill the gap.
Only A-Group Nubians on the Egyptian border so far seem to have been like predynastic Egyptians in all anthro facets, while Nubians further south (e.g. Kerma) or certain early ones (Gebel Ramlah) were not.
Also, these A-Group Nubians I am speaking of, they might cluster with other Nubians (C Group, A-Group from Upper Nubia) but they are not the same. We already know from, for instance, Gizeh-like elements in the Kerma sample, and 'alien' types discussed by early expeditions (e.g. Reisner) that later Nubian groups were different in different ways, even if not all analyses are consistently picking up on it.
I believe Batrawi also spoke on heterogeneity in Nubia, with later groups (e.g. X Group) for instance having much more ancestry from the south.
------
BTW, I'm not interested in posting in this thread anymore. Just wanted to post the Kissufim data for whatever it's worth. Tired of opinionated loudmouth non-contributing members who post trash and take more from the forum than they give. Go head. Turn it into another "Semetic" thread. Let's see how the thread is better off with your input.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh I see, this is basically what we discussed in the 3 abstracts thread...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ For context.
Thanks.
The way I see it, the major takeaway is, as the '23andme' OP in your link says, that there is a massive discontinuity with modern Egyptians, when taking the oldest sample (ie the OK sample) as a starting point, and when you take the other ancient Egyptian samples as derived from the OK sample.
(^Jari, see paragraph above)
The other stuff was already discussed in the 3 abstracts thread (unless I'm missing something).
If Djehuti or Brandon still has sth to say, let's talk about it. If not, I'd like to be on my way, before any more weird, discombobulated reactions and grudge posts come barging in that have nothing to do with anything that was said.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yes Ygor seems to be putting into context what we are speculating at, very intersting that he came to the same conclusions as us, and not the same tired "Trigger the Hoteps" conclusions so many in that community usually go to. Also, interesting that he speculated the Urimat in North Africa which the Nauret paper also speculated if I remember correctly...
Damn thats super interesting..
@Swenet...Manybe this topic deserves another thread? I know its been discussed in various other threads but maybe this post from Ygor deserves its own?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Djehuti
quote:There is still, in this cline, a not so big gap between the Egyptians and the Nubians, Sudanese and Horn Africans (I’m citing here both modern and ancient DNA samples), which will possibly be filled in the future by yet unsampled biogeographic groups from Egypt and Sudan.
Guy seems on point from what I've read so far. The gap is not filled because of what I described as 'modularity' earlier. Nubians with 'Natufian' but with non-indigenous other components from the south or the west (Maghreb/ANA and presumably also Takarkori) are not going to fill the gap.
Only A-Group Nubians on the Egyptian border so far seem to have been like predynastic Egyptians in all anthro facets, while Nubians further south (e.g. Kerma) or certain early ones (Gebel Ramlah) were not.
Also, these A-Group Nubians I am speaking of, they might cluster with other Nubians (C Group, A-Group from Upper Nubia) but they are not the same. We already know from, for instance, Gizeh-like elements in the Kerma sample, and 'alien' types discussed by early expeditions (e.g. Reisner) that later Nubian groups were different in different ways, even if not all analyses are consistently picking up on it.
I believe Batrawi also spoke on heterogeneity in Nubia, with later groups (e.g. X Group) for instance having much more ancestry from the south.
------
BTW, I'm not interested in posting in this thread anymore. Just wanted to post the Kissufim data for whatever it's worth. Tired of opinionated loudmouth non-contributing members who post trash and take more from the forum than they give. Go head. Turn it into another "Semetic" thread. Let's see how the thread is better off with your input.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
A hit dog hollered then threw his friend under the bus
So many broad suppositions being made about this or that population without any supporting data.
historical, archaeological or otherwise...
and even if there were " aliens" within a population what do they have to do with the broader civilization by which their skeletal remains are found? Unless you are covertly promoting the dynastic theory that Reisner the whites supremacist ascribed to.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: @Swenet...Manybe this topic deserves another thread? I know its been discussed in various other threads but maybe this post from Ygor deserves its own?
We've had threads on Kadruka aDNA before (e.g. this), but the discussion on North African-related populations settling Mesopotamia and giving rise to Proto-Semitic speakers could merit a thread of its own (even though we did talk about the concept in the recent thread with the supposed Old/Middle Kingdom Egyptian aDNA leaks, as well as the one on Israelite aDNA).
That said, the problem with a forum like ES is that not everyone chiming into a given thread will have informed takes or an open mind. There's not much that anyone can do about that unless one of those posters breaks forum rules and gets themselves banned. On forums with newer and more sophisticated software, it is possible to put people on "ignore" so that you don't see their posts, but it appears that ES's software is way too out of date to implement that feature (all the "ignore list" function here does is block PMs).
On the other hand, we all know the various ES alternatives that some people have set up have failed to take off. I blame this on the network effect, which is also why websites designed to compete with the likes of Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube almost never enjoy the same degree of success. Therefore, I can't recommend the creation of an alternate "safe space" as a solution to the problem.
posted
It all went downhill with this post from Djehuti talking about the recent leaks which we already have a thread for and then somehow saying that Swenet supported this theory of Levantine intrusion into the predynastic Nile. And it just sounds like some people are so desperate for any genetic data they will jump on anything they hear in any forum just because they want something genetic to analyze. When again, my position has been that they have so many ancient predynastic/early dynastic cemeteries that have not been sampled yet somehow keep finding these random odd samples from who knows where that supposedly claim this or that influence from outside the Nile. Its ridiculous.
And no, I am not saying such outside genetic influence isn't possible or wasn't present. My argument around this going all the way back to the basal eurasian fiasco has always been that they are suppressing an African component that was present between the Nile and Levant reflecting ancient Saharan pump related ancestries that influenced/helped establish both Nile Valley and Levantine agricultural traditions. Obviously this ancestry could be up to 7 to 10 kya old and won't be found given the fact that they barely have any aDNA from the Nile going back to 4kya. And along that line of questioning there is the issue of ancient African substructure among and between various African populations on different parts of the Nile and Sahara at different time frames. And calling them Kushites or Nilo-Saharans won't work in helping define that substructure.
As for Arabian influence in the ancient Horn and Nile there is also the issue of possible Arabian influence via the horn and into the Upper Nile via some kind of Red Sea route. But of course that would be a totally different scenario than a Levantine source for that genetic signal.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.
Leaked new Ancient Egyptian samples from Mussauer
You were already on page 5 of a thread talking about that
3 interesting abstracts about Ancient Egypt, Soqotra, Pastoral Neolithic Sahara.
ABSTRACT HGP-023 Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE) Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer
_______________________________
I didn't check to see if all 3 > of those charts at your reddit link were all in the 8 page thread though
I looked at all 8 pages of the 3 interesting abstracts about Ancient Egypt, Soqotra, Pastoral Neolithic Sahara.
They don't have the images Djehuti has linked except this similar one: (but the others are there in a link in the comments)
Leaked new Ancient Egyptian samples from Mussauer et al reveals genetic discontinuity between Modern and ancient Egyptians of Old Kingdom who built the pyramids and a Huge levantine influx !
^^ to see the time period images Djehuti showed It's in one of the comments there, leading to Miro C >
Miro C @MiroCyo Genetic distances to modern populations of the new Ancient Egyptian samples from the study that is going to be released at some point (Mussauer et al.)
This should really end the debates once and for all, but of course it won't for certain ethnonationalists
quote:
[deleted] • 2 mo. ago • Edited 2 mo. ago I don’t have the samples, i copied the leakage photo from a twitter page, the samples are widely leaked on twitter and some geneticists who have hand on all the study data itself talked about it
• 2 mo. ago and some geneticists who have hand on all the study data itself talked about it
Link? Thank you in advance!
[deleted] • 2 mo. ago That’s one of the most notable, Here you are:
quote: Honest-Ad4409 • 2 mo. ago These results DO NOT show discontinuity between Old Kingdom Egyptians and modern Egyptians. In fact, it shows the exact opposite…it shows modern Egyptians do descend from Old Kingdom Egyptians, just not all of it.
However, these results are not confirmed to be from the upcoming Mussauer study and these results are not official results.
And just to end with something…populations around the world are not genetically the same as their ancestors from 5000 years ago or more. Look at the Levant, there is a dramatic genetic change between Neolithic Levantines and Bronze Age Levantines. So even if this result is true (which we don’t know yet) it’s no different from any population and their ancestors from 5000 years ago. The point to take away from this is that modern Egyptians DO descend from Old Kingdom Egyptians.
posted
I wonder how probable it is that we'll ever find a "pure" Afroasiatic population in the archaeological record. African Afroasiatic samples will likely have too much admixture from other African sources, whereas Asian samples will of course have genuine Eurasian admixture. It wouldn't be so bad if we could simply point to the shared ancestry between the African and Asian samples as representing that of the original Afroasiatics, but we all know the tendency in the anthro fandom has been to call that shared ancestry "Natufian" and claim that the African Afroasiatics therefore represent Natufian/sub-Saharan mixes.
I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.
Brandon and the rest of the forum what kind of implications do you think the upcoming Takarkori Saharan study (7000 BP) will have on the wider implications of population references inside the entire continent of Africa?
Eg: Do you think it would provide a better proxy for Ancient Egyptians compared to Natufians?
Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Egyptian Civilization was NOT founded by Natufians.
Yes I know that.
quote:It was founded by Erythraics and Nilo Saharans. So there is no need to play devils advocate.
The purpose of playing 'devil's advocate' is to know your enemy's arguments and therefore its weaknesses. This is the reason why when it comes to debate I like to know where the other side is coming from. They make the point that (post-Archaic) Old Kingdom samples shows affinities to Natufians, though such affinities may stem from common origins as Natufians themselves show African affinities.
Later you post something about a hurt dog hollering but you seem like a paranoid dog hollering from fear of being hurt. Just calm down.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is still, in this cline, a not so big gap between the Egyptians and the Nubians, Sudanese and Horn Africans (I’m citing here both modern and ancient DNA samples), which will possibly be filled in the future by yet unsampled biogeographic groups from Egypt and Sudan.
Guy seems on point from what I've read so far. The gap is not filled because of what I described as 'modularity' earlier. Nubians with 'Natufian' but with non-indigenous other components from the south or the west (Maghreb/ANA and presumably also Takarkori) are not going to fill the gap.
Only A-Group Nubians on the Egyptian border so far seem to have been like predynastic Egyptians in all anthro facets, while Nubians further south (e.g. Kerma) or certain early ones (Gebel Ramlah) were not.
Also, these A-Group Nubians I am speaking of, they might cluster with other Nubians (C Group, A-Group from Upper Nubia) but they are not the same. We already know from, for instance, Gizeh-like elements in the Kerma sample, and 'alien' types discussed by early expeditions (e.g. Reisner) that later Nubian groups were different in different ways, even if not all analyses are consistently picking up on it. I believe Batrawi also spoke on heterogeneity in Nubia, with later groups (e.g. X Group) for instance having much more ancestry from the south.
That's my premise as well. As parallels note the genomic gaps between East Eurasian populations.
Not to mention the gaps between Australasian populations.
quote:------
BTW, I'm not interested in posting in this thread anymore. Just wanted to post the Kissufim data for whatever it's worth. Tired of opinionated loudmouth non-contributing members who post trash and take more from the forum than they give. Go head. Turn it into another "Semetic" thread. Let's see how the thread is better off with your input.
LOL But your reference to the Kissufim data is noted. I remember Dana citing similar data on gracile Mediterraneans exhibiting such African facial traits that differ from the later lepto-type features that get identified as 'Mediterranean'.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.
Brandon and the rest of the forum what kind of implications do you think the upcoming Takarkori Saharan study (7000 BP) will have on the wider implications of population references inside the entire continent of Africa?
Eg: Do you think it would provide a better proxy for Ancient Egyptians compared to Natufians?
It depends on the coverage, which should be okay since they could cover Neanderthal segments. But if they have good resolution then we should have a much better Idea of what African ancestry entail overall. Before I believed that they could be as good a proxy as the Natufian samples that we have, given their proximity to "Basal Eurasian". But since being prompted by Swenet on the cultural overlap between predynastics and Tenerean/Gobero m (which I learned after doing some reading, is quite convincing) I now have less reason to doubt they'll be a better fit with good coverage.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.
Brandon and the rest of the forum what kind of implications do you think the upcoming Takarkori Saharan study (7000 BP) will have on the wider implications of population references inside the entire continent of Africa?
Eg: Do you think it would provide a better proxy for Ancient Egyptians compared to Natufians?
I hope so, but IIRC, that sample was described as being related to Iberomaurisians. I do think Iberomaurusians and other ancient Maghrebis had some Afroasiatic-related ancestry, but I will admit that all the various characterizations of ANA confuse me. Some make it sound like an upstream relative of Basal Eurasian, while others treat it as being closer to sub-Saharan ancestries. Possibly, it’s somewhere on the continuum between sub-Saharans on one end and OOA on the other, but it might be too upstream to be the kind of ancestry we’re interested in. That is to say, it could have “gotten off the bus” after the sub-Saharans but before the Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I wonder how probable it is that we'll ever find a "pure" Afroasiatic population in the archaeological record. African Afroasiatic samples will likely have too much admixture from other African sources, whereas Asian samples will of course have genuine Eurasian admixture. It wouldn't be so bad if we could simply point to the shared ancestry between the African and Asian samples as representing that of the original Afroasiatics, but we all know the tendency in the anthro fandom has been to call that shared ancestry "Natufian" and claim that the African Afroasiatics therefore represent Natufian/sub-Saharan mixes.
I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.
It depends on what you mean by "pure Afrocasiatic". Do you mean the hypothetical proto-language itself or the speakers from which it arose? As far as linguistics is concerned, the theory that Mr. Coelho goes by pushes the date of Proto-Afroasiatic be at least 12,000 BC if not earlier. In fact the Omotic subfamily seems to support this as it is the most divergent of all the Afrisian languages. This is why some scholars think Afrisian was much more diverse than it is today with extinct subfamilies leaving gaps in the phylogeny.
If Natufians do represent Pre-Proto-Semitic speakers, then Semitic is all that remains similarly, Berber is all that remains of Libyco-Berber. I also believe that Egyptic was also more diverse including A-Group and who knows what else.
As for the speakers themselves, they too had to be pretty diverse. Remember that Hadza-marker is found in Natufians and other West Eurasians. And Basal Eurasian has to represent a population close to the OOA node that left out of Africa.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I hope so, but IIRC, that sample was described as being related to Iberomaurisians. I do think Iberomaurusians and other ancient Maghrebis had some Afroasiatic-related ancestry, but I will admit that all the various characterizations of ANA confuse me. Some make it sound like an upstream relative of Basal Eurasian, while others treat it as being closer to sub-Saharan ancestries. Possibly, it’s somewhere on the continuum between sub-Saharans on one end and OOA on the other, but it might be too upstream to be the kind of ancestry we’re interested in. That is to say, it could have “gotten off the bus” after the sub-Saharans but before the Egyptians.
According to the fst distance that Antalas cited they aren't as close as many believe.
The distance between IM Moroccans and Natufians are about the same as Nigerians and Biaka Pygmies of Cameroon.
and the same distance can be found between ancient Mota of Ethiopia and modern Ethiopians
What this suggests to me is a more distant ancestry between the target population and the others.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I wonder how probable it is that we'll ever find a "pure" Afroasiatic population in the archaeological record. African Afroasiatic samples will likely have too much admixture from other African sources, whereas Asian samples will of course have genuine Eurasian admixture. It wouldn't be so bad if we could simply point to the shared ancestry between the African and Asian samples as representing that of the original Afroasiatics, but we all know the tendency in the anthro fandom has been to call that shared ancestry "Natufian" and claim that the African Afroasiatics therefore represent Natufian/sub-Saharan mixes.
I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.
It depends on what you mean by "pure Afrocasiatic". Do you mean the hypothetical proto-language itself or the speakers from which it arose? As far as linguistics is concerned, the theory that Mr. Coelho goes by pushes the date of Proto-Afroasiatic be at least 12,000 BC if not earlier. In fact the Omotic subfamily seems to support this as it is the most divergent of all the Afrisian languages. This is why some scholars think Afrisian was much more diverse than it is today with extinct subfamilies leaving gaps in the phylogeny.
If Natufians do represent Pre-Proto-Semitic speakers, then Semitic is all that remains similarly, Berber is all that remains of Libyco-Berber. I also believe that Egyptic was also more diverse including A-Group and who knows what else.
As for the speakers themselves, they too had to be pretty diverse. Remember that Hadza-marker is found in Natufians and other West Eurasians. And Basal Eurasian has to represent a population close to the OOA node that left out of Africa.
I was assuming that the first Proto-Afroasiatic speakers would look like however we think the Proto-Egyptians' ancestors looked. However, the phenotype of Omotic-speakers does need accounting for, since many of them could be confused for Upper Nile peoples. I presume the Mota specimen had a similar appearance to them.
Maybe they descend from an early dispersal of Proto-Afroasiatics that went into the Horn, where Mota-like locals absorbed them? Only other scenario I can think of is that it's the Mota-type people who would have been the first Afroasiatic-speakers, and that the branch that split away from the Omotics moved into North Africa and had the locals absorb them. IIRC, Swenet has suggested that most of whatever sub-Saharan ancestry AE and Natufians shared might be related to Mota.
posted
^ There has been speculation from various scholars on what if any general phenotype the Proto-Afrisian speakers had. Unfortunately most of that data that I've come across comes from our old troll Parahu.
Craniometric chart from Froment 1998 showing generalized speakers from different language groups
Ike & Hayama 1982
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Egyptian Civilization was NOT founded by Natufians.
Yes I know that.
quote:It was founded by Erythraics and Nilo Saharans. So there is no need to play devils advocate.
The purpose of playing 'devil's advocate' is to know your enemy's arguments and therefore its weaknesses. This is the reason why when it comes to debate I like to know where the other side is coming from. They make the point that (post-Archaic) Old Kingdom samples shows affinities to Natufians, though such affinities may stem from common origins as Natufians themselves show African affinities.
Later you post something about a hurt dog hollering but you seem like a paranoid dog hollering from fear of being hurt. Just calm down.
Don't tell me to calm down, I am calm and my thoughts are measured. I am just reading and comprehending what you guys THINK you are saying and if you are saying something else well you are not articulating your thesis's properly.
In other words you don't sound as smart as you THINK you do..
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is why some scholars think Afrisian was much more diverse than it is today with extinct subfamilies leaving gaps in the phylogeny.
Which scholars?
quote: the theory that Mr. Coelho goes by pushes the date of Proto-Afroasiatic be at least 12,000 BC if not earlier.
Mr.? Who is he and what are his academic bonafides and where are his published papers?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, esp. coming from Perahu, but he definately advocated a "Hamite" approach to Afro-Asiatic...even the images he selected is of the lightest most mixed looking HOAs...
That said he does offer another approach to this "Afro-asiatic Cluster" topic that is not as Eurocentrist as Miro, but more so than Ygor's
Perahu also proposed(among many other things) an introduction of Steppe/Indo-european Ancestry into Nubia/Kerma during the Merotic period..
quote:Additionally, philological evidence backs a Steppe connection. For example, Bahadur (1917) notes that “Eusebius states that Ethiopians [Meroites] emigrating from the River Indus settled in the vicinity of Egypt [Meroe].” Nilus similarly relayed to Apollonius Tynaeus that “the Indi are the wisest of all mankind. The Ethiopians [Meroites] are a colony from them: and they inherit the wisdom of their forefathers.” The Indus river mostly traverses Pakistan, an area that historically was settled by Indo-European speakers, who carried Steppe ancestry.
Craniometric analysis likewise points to a close association between Afro-Asiatic speakers in Northeast Africa, Indo-European-speaking and Dravidian-speaking populations of South Asia, and Europeans. This affinity extends back in time to subsume early groups in these areas, including the ancient Egyptians and post-Neolithic Nubians. Brace (1993), for instance, asserts that “insofar as India has metric ties with any other populations, it combines with Nubia [Bronze Age/X-Group and Medieval/Christian Era samples] and then the Somalis to join Europe and the Egyptians [Predynastic and Late Dynastic samples] as a last link before that set of branches ties in with the rest of the world.” Multiple other studies have also observed a similar affiliation (e.g. Morton (1854), Stoessiger (1927), Coon (1939), Sergent (1997), Brace et al. (2006)). This aligns well with a diffusion of ancient Steppe-bearing peoples into Northeast Africa and South Asia, either indirectly from a common waypoint near Central Asia or directly from Europe.
Lol, Perahu's page is quite the read, Ill give him that...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ There has been speculation from various scholars on what if any general phenotype the Proto-Afrisian speakers had. Unfortunately most of that data that I've come across comes from our old troll Parahu.
Craniometric chart from Froment 1998 showing generalized speakers from different language groups
Ike & Hayama 1982
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lol, Perahu's page is quite the read, Ill give him that...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yeah! The guy presents a lot of accurate data. But it's the way he interprets that data is the problem.
You know the guy is nutty when he presents light-skinned types (either bleached-skinned girls or mixed-ancestry types) as representative of the original Cushitic or Afro-Asiatic type. But then in the same breath he says deeply melanated Mahra reflect the original phenotype of Natufians who reflect proto-Afroasiatics. LOL
He used to troll this forum years ago and was (still is?) a member of the Hamitic Union forum. The way the guy talks about Cushitic people a lot one may think he is one until you look deeper into what he says and again the 'type' of Cushitics he posts. Even actual Cushitic people have called his b.s. out and judging by his avatar of the actor Billy Crystal I doubt the guy is even African. LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Which scholars?
For one, Christopher Ehret whose date range is 11,000-16,000 BCE
Another is Alexander Militarev whose dating is 10,000-14,000 BCE
quote:Mr.? Who is he and what are his academic bonafides and where are his published papers?
I already cited his background in the previous page he has no more credentials in the topics we discuss than any of us (he's a lawyer) yet he's done the research like us here in ES and he's reached the same conclusions as us as well as others like Ethiohelix. Paul Kekai Manansala is a Filipino whose background was journalism yet his research has come to the conlusion that the ancient Egyptians were (black) Africans who are genetically and culturally related to Nubians. So the issue is not necessarily one of credentials but proper assessment of data. To not do so falls prey to the fallacy of 'Apeal to Authority' as if the authorities are always right.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Interesting, esp. coming from Perahu, but he definitely advocated a "Hamite" approach to Afro-Asiatic...even the images he selected is of the lightest most mixed looking HOAs...
I've been informed that actual Horners from the Hamitic Union have called out his distortion of what the original Cushitic speakers looked like, not the fair-and-lovely (bleached or mixed types) he keeps posting! LOL As I understand it most members of the Hamitic Union (who are Horners) just want to emphasize the fact that they differ racially from other (true negroid type) Sub-Saharans but even they are against the idea that their ancestors were light-skinned Eurasians!
quote:That said he does offer another approach to this "Afro-asiatic Cluster" topic that is not as Eurocentrist as Miro, but more so than Ygor's
I've only recently been aware of Ygor so I don't know all of his opinions. But at least does not go by the default 'Eurasiatic Origins' nonsense.
quote:Perahu also proposed(among many other things) an introduction of Steppe/Indo-european Ancestry into Nubia/Kerma during the Merotic period..
Why am I not surprised! LOL At least it would make more sense to say they received geneflow from tropical Indians. Even many scholars from back in the day noted similarities between Badarians and Harappan agriculturalists.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Interesting, esp. coming from Perahu, but he definitely advocated a "Hamite" approach to Afro-Asiatic...even the images he selected is of the lightest most mixed looking HOAs...
I've been informed that actual Horners from the Hamitic Union have called out his distortion of what the original Cushitic speakers looked like, not the fair-and-lovely (bleached or mixed types) he keeps posting! LOL As I understand it most members of the Hamitic Union (who are Horners) just want to emphasize the fact that they differ racially from other (true negroid type) Sub-Saharans but even they are against the idea that their ancestors were light-skinned Eurasians!
It could be that Perahu is of mixed ancestry himself, or simply has internalized enough colorism to think that lighter skin is more desirable. Though, on the other hand, there very likely are guys pulling an Ausar all over the armchair anthropology community. It's way too easy to lie about your ethnicity on the Internet in order to score talking points.
posted
^ I thought he could be mixed or biracial person but his avatar of Billy Crystal as well as his posting of a lot of modern Jewish types makes me wonder if he's a Jew who wants his personal type to be the proto-Afroasiatic type. I don't know nor do I care. He just happens to have a lot of good objective data. How he interprets it is something else.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait I thought Perahu was a(Really Fair/White Skinned) Berber....oh wait Im thinking of Fawal(lol)
But come to think of it, I vaguely remember Parahu claiming to be an Arab Xtian possibly Armenian...IDK
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I thought he could be mixed or biracial person but his avatar of Billy Crystal as well as his posting of a lot of modern Jewish types makes me wonder if he's a Jew who wants his personal type to be the proto-Afroasiatic type. I don't know nor do I care. He just happens to have a lot of good objective data. How he interprets it is something else.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know another Author who proposed a similar theory was Robert Bouval in Black Genesis, He did'nt use the genetic side but from an archeological side, proposed a connection between Ancient Egypt/Nabta Playa and the Tebu as a good modern Example of the Proto A. Egyptians
I also think that the Tebu/Fulani are a modern population that represents how these ancient proto Afro-Asiatics could have looked, hey still I mean they still practice Pastoralism...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:I already cited his background in the previous page he has no more credentials in the topics we discuss than any of us (he's a lawyer) yet he's done the research like us here in ES and he's reached the same conclusions as us as well as others like Ethiohelix. Paul Kekai Manansala is a Filipino whose background was journalism yet his research has come to the conlusion that the ancient Egyptians were (black) Africans who are genetically and culturally related to Nubians. So the issue is not necessarily one of credentials but proper assessment of data. To not do so falls prey to the fallacy of 'Apeal to Authority' as if the authorities are always right.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Wait I thought Perahu was a(Really Fair/White Skinned) Berber....oh wait Im thinking of Fawal(lol)
But come to think of it, I vaguely remember Parahu claiming to be an Arab Xtian possibly Armenian...IDK
So is Fawal the same as Melchior/Antalas?? I think Abaza is a (Druze?) Palestinian. These trolls are all alike and blur into one another so I don't care.
quote: You know another Author who proposed a similar theory was Robert Bauval in Black Genesis, He didn't use the genetic side but from an archeological side, proposed a connection between Ancient Egypt/Nabta Playa and the Tebu as a good modern Example of the Proto A. Egyptians
I also think that the Tebu/Fulani are a modern population that represents how these ancient proto Afro-Asiatics could have looked, hey still I mean they still practice Pastoralism...
Bauval was slightly off, but just slightly. Nabta Playa was not built by Egyptians per say but by a Nubian population. These ancient Nubians of the Western Desert may very well be related to the ancestors of the Tubu. But Tubu are not the same as the Fulani whose ancestors lived across the Green Sahara but as nomads these groups were likely in contact.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I wonder how probable it is that we'll ever find a "pure" Afroasiatic population in the archaeological record. African Afroasiatic samples will likely have too much admixture from other African sources, whereas Asian samples will of course have genuine Eurasian admixture. It wouldn't be so bad if we could simply point to the shared ancestry between the African and Asian samples as representing that of the original Afroasiatics, but we all know the tendency in the anthro fandom has been to call that shared ancestry "Natufian" and claim that the African Afroasiatics therefore represent Natufian/sub-Saharan mixes.
I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.
Unraveling the genetic lineages present in and around various parts of Northern Africa isnt going to help with ancient language families going back 10,000 years. It wouldn't even make sense to try and assign any such lineages or skeletal traits to language groups. That can only happen with historical populations of which languages are known. There is no ancient linguistic data that would be available for 10,000 years ago or more.
I would assume that identifying what lineages were present and any novel lineages that may have arisen and no longer are pesent would be a bigger revelation. Along with what lineages from what regions appeared over time in various areas, whether they be from in Africa and moving outward or outside Africa moving in.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You know another Author who proposed a similar theory was Robert Bouval in Black Genesis, He did'nt use the genetic side but from an archeological side, proposed a connection between Ancient Egypt/Nabta Playa and the Tebu as a good modern Example of the Proto A. Egyptians
I also think that the Tebu/Fulani are a modern population that represents how these ancient proto Afro-Asiatics could have looked, hey still I mean they still practice Pastoralism...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:I already cited his background in the previous page he has no more credentials in the topics we discuss than any of us (he's a lawyer) yet he's done the research like us here in ES and he's reached the same conclusions as us as well as others like Ethiohelix. Paul Kekai Manansala is a Filipino whose background was journalism yet his research has come to the conlusion that the ancient Egyptians were (black) Africans who are genetically and culturally related to Nubians. So the issue is not necessarily one of credentials but proper assessment of data. To not do so falls prey to the fallacy of 'Apeal to Authority' as if the authorities are always right.
Nabta Playa was built by Nilo Saharan people not the proto afroasiatics/erythraic peoples from the horn and the highlands of Ethiopia.
The Nilo Saharans were cattle pastorialists and the Erythraic developed ancient wild grain harvesting. Both of these populations end up in the Nile valley but have different origins and different subsistence strategies. These Nilo Saharans when they build Nabta playa are not Nubians yet, they are proto Nubians and pre dynastic proto Egyptians
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote: MALDER, which has the potential to determine whether or not the admixture LD in the population is best represented as the result of one or multiple mixtures, showed that two mixture events had occurred in the Toubou (Figure 3A; Table S3). The first event occurred 2,850–3,500 ya (Z score ¼ 11), a time close to the date of mixture in East Africans 2,500–2,700 ya (Z score ¼ 26)
quote: admixture LD showed that the events in southern Chad preceded the events in East Africa by 2,000–4,500 years, and (2) we found in Chad a Eurasian Y chromosome lineage (Y haplogroup R1b-V88) that had penetrated all Chadian populations examined but was absent or rare from the Ethiopians examined (Table S4; Figure S1). From whole Y chromosome sequences (Figure S2), we estimate that the Chadian R1bV88 chromosomes sampled emerged 5,700–7,300 ya(Figure 3B), a time comparable to the Laal speaker admixture dates (4,750–7,200 ya) estimated from genome-wide LD-decay patterns.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] Wait I thought Perahu was a(Really Fair/White Skinned) Berber....oh wait Im thinking of Fawal(lol)
But come to think of it, I vaguely remember Parahu claiming to be an Arab Xtian possibly Armenian...IDK
So is Fawal the same as Melchior/Antalas?? I think Abaza is a (Druze?) Palestinian. These trolls are all alike and blur into one another so I don't care.
quote: You know another Author who proposed a similar theory was Robert Bauval in Black Genesis, He didn't use the genetic side but from an archeological side, proposed a connection between Ancient Egypt/Nabta Playa and the Tebu as a good modern Example of the Proto A. Egyptians
I also think that the Tebu/Fulani are a modern population that represents how these ancient proto Afro-Asiatics could have looked, hey still I mean they still practice Pastoralism...
Bauval was slightly off, but just slightly. Nabta Playa was not built by Egyptians per say but by a Nubian population . These ancient Nubians of the Western Desert may very well be related to the ancestors of the Tubu. But Tubu are not the same as the Fulani whose ancestors lived across the Green Sahara but as nomads these groups were likely in contact.
Please show us a quote where Bauval acutallysaid that? Thomas Brophy is the co author to Black Genesis
quote:Thomas Brophy, PhD ASTROPHYSICS , is president of the California Institute of Human Science. He also serves as president of the Society for Consciousness Studies. He is author of The Mechanism Demands a Mysticism: An Exploration of Spirit, Matter and Physics (see https://amzn.to/3abDkGz) as well as The Origin Map: Discovery of a Prehistoric, Megalithic, Astrophysical Map and Sculpture of the Universe has also coauthored, two books with Robert Bauval titled Black Genesis: The Prehistoric Origins of Ancient Egypt (see https://amzn.to/2Rhh1qb) and Imhotep the African: Architect of the Cosmos is president of the California Institute of Human Science. He also serves as president of the Society for Consciousness Studies. He is author of The Mechanism Demands a Mysticism: An Exploration of Spirit, Matter and Physics (see https://amzn.to/3abDkGz) as well as The Origin Map: Discovery of a Prehistoric, Megalithic, Astrophysical Map and Sculpture of the Universe (see https://amzn.to/30hM9tH). (see https://amzn.to/38721SD). His websites are https://www.cihs.edu/ and https://consc.org/.
Here he describes his research in portions of the Sahara desert that are rarely explored where he encountered prehistoric, megalithic structures of astronomical significance, as well as rock paintings and inscriptions. He explains how these artifacts were created by the black population at a time when the area produced rains and had many animals. When the climate changed, he believes that these people migrated east and north and helped to create the culture of ancient Egypt .
Black African Origins of Ancient Egyptian Culture with Thomas Brophy
Mar 4, 2020
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia has a presentation of Robert Bauval
quote:Robert Bauval (born 5 March 1948) is a Belgian author and lecturer, perhaps best known for the fringe Orion Correlation Theory regarding the Giza pyramid complex.
quote:On 4 November 1999, the BBC broadcast a documentary entitled Atlantis Reborn which tested the ideas of Robert Bauval and his colleague, Graham Hancock. Bauval and Hancock afterwards complained to the BSC (Broadcasting Standards Commission) that they had been treated unfairly. A hearing followed and in November 2000 the BSC ruled in favour of the documentary makers on all but one of the ten principal complaints brought by Hancock and Bauval.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You know another Author who proposed a similar theory was Robert Bouval in Black Genesis, He did'nt use the genetic side but from an archeological side, proposed a connection between Ancient Egypt/Nabta Playa and the Tebu as a good modern Example of the Proto A. Egyptians
I also think that the Tebu/Fulani are a modern population that represents how these ancient proto Afro-Asiatics could have looked, hey still I mean they still practice Pastoralism...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:I already cited his background in the previous page he has no more credentials in the topics we discuss than any of us (he's a lawyer) yet he's done the research like us here in ES and he's reached the same conclusions as us as well as others like Ethiohelix. Paul Kekai Manansala is a Filipino whose background was journalism yet his research has come to the conlusion that the ancient Egyptians were (black) Africans who are genetically and culturally related to Nubians. So the issue is not necessarily one of credentials but proper assessment of data. To not do so falls prey to the fallacy of 'Apeal to Authority' as if the authorities are always right.
Nabta Playa was built by Nilo Saharan people not the proto afroasiatics/erythraic peoples from the horn and the highlands of Ethiopia.
The Nilo Saharans were cattle pastorialists and the Erythraic developed ancient wild grain harvesting. Both of these populations end up in the Nile valley but have different origins and different subsistence strategies. These Nilo Saharans when they build Nabta playa are not Nubians yet, they are proto Nubians and pre dynastic proto Egyptians
There is no way to know for sure what languages were spoken by those who built Nabta Playa. Such things are always going to speculative because there is no proof of language without ancient scripts or actually hearing the actual language.
And of course Bauval's Black Genesis isn't a new or "novel" idea as if it is surprising that ancient populations in the Upper Nile and Sahara were anything other than indigenous Africans to begin with. The problem is the effort to separate later cultures in the Lower Nile from these African roots when all the evidence points to a south to north/west to east flow since the last wet phase. All this obsession with Eurasian genetic influence is simply a distraction from those facts.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Nabta Playa was built by Nilo Saharan people not the proto afroasiatics/erythraic peoples from the horn and the highlands of Ethiopia.
The Nilo Saharans were cattle pastorialists and the Erythraic developed ancient wild grain harvesting. Both of these populations end up in the Nile valley but have different origins and different subsistence strategies. These Nilo Saharans when they build Nabta playa are not Nubians yet, they are proto Nubians and pre dynastic proto Egyptians
And pray tell, how do you know what language phylum was spoken by which group considering we have no such evidence?? This is why predynastic or Neolithic cultures are labeled by their material remains because don't know anything else about their identity.
I get your point that the people of Nabta exhibit Nilotic cultural features such as cattle cult and subsisting on both cattle milk and blood, but don't know for sure what language they spoke anymore say the Abkan Culture of Upper Nubia.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Nabta Playa was built by Nilo Saharan people not the proto afroasiatics/erythraic peoples from the horn and the highlands of Ethiopia.
The Nilo Saharans were cattle pastorialists and the Erythraic developed ancient wild grain harvesting. Both of these populations end up in the Nile valley but have different origins and different subsistence strategies. These Nilo Saharans when they build Nabta playa are not Nubians yet, they are proto Nubians and pre dynastic proto Egyptians
And pray tell, how do you know what language phylum was spoken by which group considering we have no such evidence?? This is why predynastic or Neolithic cultures are labeled by their material remains because don't know anything else about their identity.
I get your point that the people of Nabta exhibit Nilotic cultural features such as cattle cult and subsisting on both cattle milk and blood, but don't know for sure what language they spoke anymore say the Abkan Culture of Upper Nubia.
You can always email Christopher Erhet and ask him since these are just screen shots from his newest book. Or you can buy it and read it.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I read Ehret's works. Both he and Fred Wendorf think the Nabtans could be Nilo-Saharans but they are not sure since again, we have no historical texts from these people to know that they actually spoke. Ehret has made it clear that ancient Egyptian language has recieved Nilo-Saharan influence early on. But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)
Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.
From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era. -- World History Connected: A Conversation with Christopher Ehret
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I read Ehret's works. Both he and Fred Wendorf think the Nabtans could be Nilo-Saharans but they are not sure since again, we have no historical texts from these people to know that they actually spoke. Ehret has made it clear that ancient Egyptian language has recieved Nilo-Saharan influence early on. But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)
Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.
From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era. -- World History Connected: A Conversation with Christopher Ehret
This is his latest work published this August 2023. He shows his work on Nilo Saharan. I suggest you read this latest work
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The only work published this year from Ehret is the book Ancient Africa: A Global History, to 300 CE. If that's what you're citing, then again his hypothesis that they were Nilo-Saharan seems to be based on their cattle culture only. My point is that it's probable but not certain because that area of Nubia also lies in Afroasiatics/Erythraic territory.
And by "Nubians" I don't mean modern ethnic Nubians but simply inhabitants of the region of Nubia. The structures at Nabta are based on alignments of heliacal and stellar (sirius) patterns which are the exact same patterns that Egyptian monuments are based on. This is why some scholars are pointing to Nabtans as ancestral Egyptians yet archaeologically they are not ancestral to Egyptians. That does not necessarily mean they aren't Afroasiatic, but they are not ancestral to Egyptians. If they are continuous to other cultures in the Sahara then there is no telling for certain what languages they spoke since even some languages traditionally grouped in Nilo-Saharan today are actually language isolates that show Nilo-Saharan like features like Songhay. There is even evidence of language isolates in Ethiopia like the old language of the Waata people that became extinct in the last century and may be related to Degere.
So as much as I respect Ehret as an expert, I'm not as confident in his conclusions as you are because there was a lot more diversity in ancient times that was lost and without actual historical evidence for me it's just safe to say I don't know. By the way, language phyla are one thing and populations are another which is why I addressed the Nilo-Saharan peoples here.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only work published this year from Ehret is the book Ancient Africa: A Global History, to 300 CE.
Boy you are slow... that is exactly what I said, quit repeating what I said like I did not say it and it is something you newly discovered.
The way I can tell you are arguing with a book you have not read is interesting to me.
And if you DON't READ THE BOOK you won't know if he is basing his Nilo Saharan Nabta Playa only on cattle culture. READ THE BOOK
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well I don't have the book at the moment. Since you've obviously read it, how about you cite the evidence Ehret has. You say I'm "slow" but I just merely state the simple fact we don't know for languages the Nabtans spoke since we have no historical records. If favoring hard evidence over wishful thinking is "slow" then so be it.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Archaeological findings indicate the presence of small seasonal camps in the region dating to the 9th–8th millennia BC.[2] Fred Wendorf, the site's discoverer, and ethno-linguist Christopher Ehret have suggested that the people who occupied this region at that time may have been early pastoralists, or like the Saami practiced semi-pastoralism.[2] This is disputed by other sources as the cattle remains found at Nabta have been shown to be morphologically wild in several studies, and hunter-gatherers at the nearby Saharan site of Uan Afada in Libya were penning wild Barbary sheep, an animal that was never domesticated.[6] According to Michael Brass (2018) early cattle remains from Nabta Playa were wild hunted aurochs, whilst domesticated cattle were introduced to northeast Africa in the late 7th millennium BC, originating from cattle domesticated in the Euphrates valley.[7]
Late Neolithic megalithic structures at Nabta Playa (Sahara), southwestern Egypt. By Fred Wendorf Anthropology Department
Southern Methodist University
The geographic position of the Nabta center is also of interest. Nabta may have been a contact point between the early Neolithic groups along the Nile who had an agricultural economy and the cattle pastoralists in the Eastern Sahara. The functional separation of these two different economies may have played a significant role in the emergence of complexity among both groups. The evidence for Nilotic influence on pastoralists is not extensive and is presently limited to ceramic technology, domestic caprovids, and the occasional trade of shells of Nile species and rare stones from the Nile gravel. However, there are many aspects of political and ceremonial life in the Predynastic and Old Kingdom that reflects a strong impact from Saharan cattle pastoralists.
The likely possibility of a symbiotic relationship between the cattle pastoralists in the Sahara and the Neolithic groups in the Nile Valley points to a potentially important role for the Nabta regional ceremonial center. Among East African cattle pastoralists regional ceremonial centers, because of their integrative role, are frequently placed near boundaries between different segments of a tribe, or between different tribal groups. The Nabta center could well have served that purpose, it could have been located between several groups of pastoralists, and between pastoralists and the Neolithic farmers along the Nile, 100 km away.
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well I don't have the book at the moment. Since you've obviously read it, how about you cite the evidence Ehret has. You say I'm "slow" but I just merely state the simple fact we don't know for languages the Nabtans spoke since we have no historical records. If favoring hard evidence over wishful thinking is "slow" then so be it.
So if they did not speak Nilo Saharan at Nabta Playa what did they speak in your opinion
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't have one because I haven't seen enough evidence. I never said they didn't speak Nilo-Saharan, I just said I'm not certain. Aspects of their culture is very much Nilotic such as both milk and blood subsistence from cattle. Their heliacal and syrius stellar megaliths are very much the same as later dynastic Egyptians who were Afroasiatic speaking. The territory of Nabta-Kiseiba lies in an area where Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan overlaps so who knows. As I said it could just as well be possible that they spoke a language from an entirely different group. As I said, there are vestiges of language isolates both in the Horn and in the western Sahel. The Songhai for example who even formed their own empire had they language classified as 'Nilo-Saharan' once only for linguists to realize it really wasn't. Linguists like Ehret are going by conjecture when they postulate where a language phylum originates and to what extent its speakers ranged.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I don't have one because I haven't seen enough evidence. I never said they didn't speak Nilo-Saharan, I just said I'm not certain. Aspects of their culture is very much Nilotic such as both milk and blood subsistence from cattle. Their heliacal and syrius stellar megaliths are very much the same as later dynastic Egyptians who were Afroasiatic speaking. The territory of Nabta-Kiseiba lies in an area where Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan overlaps so who knows. As I said it could just as well be possible that they spoke a language from an entirely different group. As I said, there are vestiges of language isolates both in the Horn and in the western Sahel. The Songhai for example who even formed their own empire had they language classified as 'Nilo-Saharan' once only for linguists to realize it really wasn't. Linguists like Ehret are going by conjecture when they postulate where a language phylum originates and to what extent its speakers ranged.
Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan?
What vestige languages are NOT Nilo Saharan nor Afroasiatic in the Sahel & The Horn are you speaking of? What are their names and what ethnic groups speak them?
How do you dispute Ehret's " conjecture" on Songhai as a a nilo saharan language? What is your linguistic evidence to the contrary?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
The facts are that all evidence points to the regions along the Nile between Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan as the cultural heartland of the Nile Valley between the last Wet Phase and 5,000 BC. And this period involved many different populations who came and went over time in this region as part of seasonal migrations and interacted with others who had a more settled lifestyle. And this migratory pattern ties into the populations in the Sahara during the last wet phase as well. The languages all these groups spoke over the time frame from 10kya to 5kya is not known. And unfortunately there is little if any DNA from these time periods either.
Anyway, earlier European scholarship proposed a link between one of these early Upper Egyptian/Lower Sudanese cultures called the Halfan and those of the Iberomaurisans but it s bogged down in typical racialist rhetoric. The key point being stone tool trends emerged along the Nile and then headed West.
quote:
Category: History & Society
Also called: Oranian Industry
Ibero-Maurusian industry, North African stone-tool industry dating from the late Würm (last) Glacial Period, about 16,000 years ago. The former presumption that the industry extended into Spain explains the prefix “Ibero-” in the name. The industry does bear a close resemblance to the late Magdalenian culture in Spain, which is broadly contemporary (c. 15,000 bc). Subsequent study, however, suggests that the Ibero-Maurusian industry is derived from a Nile River valley culture known as Halfan, which dates from about 17,000 bc. Human remains are rather frequently associated with Ibero-Maurusian artifacts, and it appears that the industry belonged to a group of people known as the Mechta-el-Arbi race, considered to have been a North African branch of Cro-Magnon man.
Suffice to say, the later dynastic culture emerged from earlier cultures on the Nile like the Halfan and Kubbaniyan which were part of a settlement complex on the Upper Nile that goes back to the Pleistocene and further. So this firmly shows that the root of these cultural traditions and early populations migrating along the Nile was in Africa.
Another more modern narrative of these cultural traditions, but again using misleading phrasing because all of these traditions were African (note the last bit about the Harifian, when all the evidence on the Nile points to an indigenous African pastoral complex evolving in the Sahara/Sahel and on the NIle):
quote: The Late Paleolithic
This period began around 30,000 BCE. Ancient, mobile buildings, capable of being disassembled and reassembled were found along the southern border near Wadi Halfa. Aterian tool-making industry reached Egypt around 40,000 BCE, and Khormusan industry began between 40,000 and 30,000 BCE. The Mesolithic
Halfan culture arose along the Nile Valley of Egypt and in Nubia between 18,000 and 15,000 BCE. They appeared to be settled people, descended from the Khormusan people, and spawned the Ibero-Marusian industry. Material remains from these people include stone tools, flakes, and rock paintings.
The Qadan culture practiced wild-grain harvesting along the Nile, and developed sickles and grinding stones to collect and process these plants. These people were likely residents of Libya who were pushed into the Nile Valley due to desiccation in the Sahara. The Sebilian culture (also known as Esna) gathered wheat and barley.
The Harifian culture migrated out of the Fayyum and the Eastern deserts of Egypt to merge with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; this created the Circum-Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex, who invented nomadic pastoralism, and may have spread Proto-Semitic language throughout Mesopotamia.
It just shows how desperate these people are to associate anything to do with the dynastic era, even if it comes from further south or in the central Sahara, with Eurasia.
quote: General Data on the Late Palaeolithic of the Main Nile Valley
Numerous archaeological sites are dated to MIS 2 in the main Nile Valley, most of which are surface occurrences of bone fragments and lithic artefacts. Based on the characteristics of the lithic artefacts, i.e., the production of flakes and elongated products (blade/lets) of small dimensions associated with a toolkit including high proportions of backed tools, they are attributed to the Late Palaeolithic. The Late Palaeolithic (ca. 25-12 ka) in north-eastern Africa follows the Upper Palaeolithic (with scarce sites dated to ca. 50-25 ka), and precedes the Epipalaeolithic in the Egyptian Nile Valley and Egyptian Eastern Desert (with sites dated from ca. 9 ka cal BP, Vermeersch, 2012), the Early Neolithic in the Western and Eastern Desert of Egypt (from ca. 10 ka cal BP, Wendorf et al., 2001; Gatto, 2012) and the Mesolithic in the Sudan (from ca. 11 ka cal BP, Honegger, 2019). The Late Palaeolithic in north-eastern Africa is coeval with the Epipalaeolithic in the Levant, the Iberomaurusian/Later Stone Age in northern Africa and the Later Stone Age in other African regions. This constellation of terminologies and the use of the same terms to designate different periods in different regions make comparisons at the macro-regional scale difficult.
Late Palaeolithic sites in north-eastern Africa are located mostly in southern Egypt and Nubia. Most sites were discovered during prehistoric investigations as part of the Nubia Campaign which began in 1961–1962, (Schild and Wendorf, 2002) and archaeological expeditions that followed, until the end of the 1980s. This leads to a record biased toward certain geographical areas (in particular, the location of the Aswan Dam in northern Nubia), although geomorphological reasons also explain why virtually no Late Palaeolithic sites are known north of Qena (see also The Late Pleistocene main Nile in southern Egypt and Nubia section). The only possible occurrences of Late Palaeolithic assemblages in northern Egypt are in the region of Helwan, near Cairo, where P. Bovier-Lapierre at the beginning of the 20th century (Bovier-Lapierre, 1926) and F. Debono in 1936 (Debono, 1948; Debono and Mortensen, 1990, 9–11) noted several surface occurrences or ‘stations’ of material that they attribute to the end of the Palaeolithic. In a later reassessment of Debono’s surface collections, Schmidt (1996) attributed Debono site 7 ‘ostrich’ to the Late Upper Palaeolithic and published two dates on ostrich eggshell fragments of ca. 18 ka BP (or ca. 21–23 ka cal BP). Schmidt (1996) also mentions several localities with microlithic artefacts that he attributes to the Epipalaeolithic, although it is unclear whether this refers to the Epipalaeolithic or Late Palaeolithic. Recent research in the Nile Delta has also reported the presence of Epipalaeolithic assemblages (Rowland and Tassie, 2014; Tassie, 2014). However, with the exception of the two dates on ostrich eggshell fragments which must be considered with caution as these are surface finds, the Late Palaeolithic or Epipalaeolithic surface occurrences in the Nile Delta are poorly dated and may not in fact date to MIS 2 (see discussion below).
The Songhai for example who even formed their own empire had they language classified as 'Nilo-Saharan' once only for linguists to realize it really wasn't.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan?
Likely he meant to say that the Songhai languages had once been classified as Niger-Congo langauges, but he can correct me if i am misrepresenting his position. But to your question, Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan? The leading scholar in Songhai languages, Robert Nicolaï, disagrees that the Songhai languages belong in the Nilo-Saharan language phylum, but rather that they're Berber - Mande creoles, with some more "berberized" than others (Tadaksahak for example).
To your point about the Nabtan's possibly being Nilo-Saharan speakers, please elaborate on what this entails? We are currently speaking in English, does that mean that we are of Anglo-Saxon heritage? Fulani pastoralists speak Niger-Congo languages yet still cluster with certain Nilo-Saharan and Chadic groups. The fact that the people who were at Nabta Playa may or may not have spoken Nilotic-Saharan languages could mean nothing more than cultural contact between two different groups, nothing genetic related, they could've still been a majority Levantine/Eurasian population.
Offtopic, but does anybody know the name of the scholar who believed that the Ancient Egyptians actually spoke a Nilo-Saharan language? I've seen him mentioned on this site but can't find the thread.
Posts: 200 | From: Nibiru | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic