I don't think it does a good job at narrowing down the specifics. I would like to do a deep dive into this region concentrating on the archeological diversity in a way that deconstructs the idea of Predynastic Egypt (1) Being a singular thing and (2) Having a Technological explosion during the Neolithic with widely known Badari/Naqada. I want to focus on archeology and the Association of Fossilized humans or human activity with distinct material cultures.
In a way, the article i write will probably STOP at the old Kingdom.
Are their any concepts or peer reviewed Text that someone would like to see included? Something interesting that always eludes these "origin" discussions. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia has its uses, but I feel that articles on controversial topics (like the one we're dealing with) are less likely to be accurate and more vulnerable to "edit wars". So I don't know if I would recommend that article you link to as a source, even though it's not the worst or most biased presentation of the data that I have seen.
Honestly, if you must have an article to refer people to for accurate information on ancient Nile Valley people's population origins and affinities, something a biological anthropologist or other expert (e.g. Keita) wrote would be best. They'll likely have more qualifications to speak on the topic than some lay blogger with an ethno-nationalist or activist agenda.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Honestly, if you must have an article to refer people to for accurate information on ancient Nile Valley people's population origins and affinities, something a biological anthropologist or other expert (e.g. Keita) wrote would be best.
This is why I just want to WRITE ONE myself. Notice how these articles begin at the Neolithic . I want to not go deep into the Biological origins aspect but rather simply speak of the human Fossils and material culture, what they contributed, what was found in what region, when it was found, the spread of the material culture from region A to B...the technology involved, lithics pottery, agriculture, animal husbandry etc.
I KNOW THERE SOME SOMETHING EVERYONE WANTS TO SEE BECUASE I KNOW I WANT TO SEE IT.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could no doubt do a good job on this but I would not put much energy into the Wikipedia basket, since some troll could destroy or distort your days of work in a few seconds, getting you bogged down in a "page watch"/"edit war" scenario. Furthermore once you loose the magnum opus there you don't get much credit for it. Probably a better bet is to get the opus prepped then get it published on Academia.edu or on one of the open-source journals. That way it is fully under your control and you get the credit. You can then publish it online in other places- blogs, excerpts here and there, and even on Egyptsearch. Link it to your Facebook and Twitter maybe. Then maybe finally, do a "lite" version for Wikipedia- seeing who is messing with it. Will there be real contributors actually helping along the knowledge, or BS distorters, time-wasters or trolls?
There are of course a ton of references you can use - from the old cranial studies, to today's limb proportion or DNA to quick survey the bio origins part, before diving into the material-archeo -cultural side. Either way, the problem is not finding material as we all know. The field is like the Nile Flood with information. A good link on the material archeo is Teeter's book "Before the Pyramids" below but there is so much out there. https://oi-idb-static.uchicago.edu/multimedia/88/oimp33.pdf
The problem is analyzing, summarizing and packaging and putting a distinctive twist or angle on the material others have not done much. The usual focus questions would be there of course:
--The target audience? Geeks? Students? Scholars? Hoteps? Newbies? Old hands?
-What kind of prose to use- densely written academia style or more general user verbiage?
--What differentiates the work from the massive "Nile torrent" of material out there already?
--How did the pre-Neolithic contribute? Nazlet Khater? Various intermediates?
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a website where i blog stuff. www.astenb.com
Much of what I write about are things i just got tired of repeating over and over and decided to go in-depth on...that way i can just send someone a link. See Rameses E1b1a or Abusir. I need to also write something on DNA Tribes. I DONT plan on publishing anything TO wikipedia but Wikipedia is used as a go to source for AE origins. Its incomplete because it starts at the Neolithic. It doesn't mention pre neolithic history and gives an impression that the Neolithic was the first appearance of food producing technologies, pottery etc....it wasn't.
-Target Audience is lay folk that want a general history of the peopling of the Nile Valley from 60kya until Unification. NOT Badari/Naqada to Unification which is what we always see. Target audience is also people who are not familiar with western Desert connections and WIDER African archeology, Barbed bone points, the Aqualithic, Saharo Sudanese culture. For instance how is there an "Egyptians origins" article that doesn't even mentioned what FOOD they grew and where it came from??? Target Audience is folks who read Genetic articles but don't know anything about archeology so this would provide archeological context of WHAT was going on at whatever specific location they they argue "Haplogroup __" spread from during a particular time.
-Differentiation...I don't think anything that i have read is specific enough. Most of the stuff out there is not based on archeological sources within the last 20 years. IMO Its all old rehashed stuff everyone knows about. If it IS new stuff is all stuff that been somewhat spammed IE Maria Gatto has published excellent work but the article that Ties Tasian and Badarian to "Nubians" is the one everyone keeps referencing. Everyone is writing about biological affinities dna. Nobody is writing about material cultures of the groups in question, where they come from and where they went.
-Pre-Neolithic. Nazlet Khater is one of them. Unfortunately people dont even know this this specimen EXISTED. For instance, something i would include is the Massacre at Jebel Sahaba, how this conflict was sustained over time and how lithic affinities of the stone projectiles embedded WITHIN Jebel Sahaban victims is closest to the Egyptian occupational site as Wadi Tushka. Who are Wadi Tushkans? Who are Jebel Sahabans? Who are Jebel Ramlahns, Nabtans, Bir Kiseibans, Fayoum Mesolithic and Neolithic
Ultimately im going to sum up a lot of information from data most non-academics have not and likely will not READ.
-Angles - Hard Core Data dump with a focus on NEW or RARE Sources. I want what i write to be able to DEBUNNK OR SUPPORT Afrocentricity. Folks Ideological leanings are going to Stand Strong or collapse like a house of cards based on DATA and Evidence. Afrocentists and Eurocentrists both be lying. IE: Im not going to LIE like it wasnt "Africans" that brought a Domesticated Donkey into North East Africa.....furthermore I aint going to LIE like "SW Asians" didn't transmit an agricultural package into North East Africa. IM simply going to point out both things happened...and show the archeological context in which they are found.
So at this point what i am looking for if for someone to say:'
I am trying to get some feelers from the folks who have been here for a while of what THEY think is important. FYI i asked this in an audience of about 70 people....and didn't get ONE link.
This was prompted by a college Student in an Egypt focused Facebook Group (full of intelligent people) asking for a "Short Summary on the peopling of Egypt. He got dozens of one sentance replies all of which included the word "Black". Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Honestly, if you must have an article to refer people to for accurate information on ancient Nile Valley people's population origins and affinities, something a biological anthropologist or other expert (e.g. Keita) wrote would be best.
This is why I just want to WRITE ONE myself. Notice how these articles begin at the Neolithic . I want to not go deep into the Biological origins aspect but rather simply speak of the human Fossils and material culture, what they contributed, what was found in what region, when it was found, the spread of the material culture from region A to B...the technology involved, lithics pottery, agriculture, animal husbandry etc.
Understood. I still think expert feedback would be invaluable. Maybe email Keita or someone else once you've drafted a write-up.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I have a website where i blog stuff. www.astenb.com
Much of what I write about are things i just got tired of repeating over and over and decided to go in-depth on...that way i can just send someone a link. See Rameses E1b1a or Abusir. I need to also write something on DNA Tribes. I DONT plan on publishing anything TO wikipedia but Wikipedia is used as a go to source for AE origins. Its incomplete because it starts at the Neolithic. It doesn't mention pre neolithic history and gives an impression that the Neolithic was the first appearance of food producing technologies, pottery etc....it wasn't.
-Target Audience is lay folk that want a general history of the peopling of the Nile Valley from 60kya until Unification. NOT Badari/Naqada to Unification which is what we always see. Target audience is also people who are not familiar with western Desert connections and WIDER African archeology, Barbed bone points, the Aqualithic, Saharo Sudanese culture. For instance how is there an "Egyptians origins" article that doesn't even mentioned what FOOD they grew and where it came from??? Target Audience is folks who read Genetic articles but don't know anything about archeology so this would provide archeological context of WHAT was going on at whatever specific location they they argue "Haplogroup __" spread from during a particular time.
-Differentiation...I don't think anything that i have read is specific enough. Most of the stuff out there is not based on archeological sources within the last 20 years. IMO Its all old rehashed stuff everyone knows about. If it IS new stuff is all stuff that been somewhat spammed IE Maria Gatto has published excellent work but the article that Ties Tasian and Badarian to "Nubians" is the one everyone keeps referencing. Everyone is writing about biological affinities dna. Nobody is writing about material cultures of the groups in question, where they come from and where they went.
-Pre-Neolithic. Nazlet Khater is one of them. Unfortunately people dont even know this this specimen EXISTED. For instance, something i would include is the Massacre at Jebel Sahaba, how this conflict was sustained over time and how lithic affinities of the stone projectiles embedded WITHIN Jebel Sahaban victims is closest to the Egyptian occupational site as Wadi Tushka. Who are Wadi Tushkans? Who are Jebel Sahabans? Who are Jebel Ramlahns, Nabtans, Bir Kiseibans, Fayoum Mesolithic and Neolithic
Ultimately im going to sum up a lot of information from data most non-academics have not and likely will not READ.
-Angles - Hard Core Data dump with a focus on NEW or RARE Sources. I want what i write to be able to DEBUNNK OR SUPPORT Afrocentricity. Folks Ideological leanings are going to Stand Strong or collapse like a house of cards based on DATA and Evidence. Afrocentists and Eurocentrists both be lying. IE: Im not going to LIE like it wasnt "Africans" that brought a Domesticated Donkey into North East Africa.....furthermore I aint going to LIE like "SW Asians" didn't transmit an agricultural package into North East Africa. IM simply going to point out both things happened...and show the archeological context in which they are found.
So at this point what i am looking for if for someone to say:'
I am trying to get some feelers from the folks who have been here for a while of what THEY think is important. FYI i asked this in an audience of about 70 people....and didn't get ONE link.
This was prompted by a college Student in an Egypt focused Facebook Group (full of intelligent people) asking for a "Short Summary on the peopling of Egypt. He got dozens of one sentance replies all of which included the word "Black".
Looking at what some of the response patterns have been, part of the issue may be that the long predynastic doesn't have the same glamor of the pharonic periods, or even secondarily the Badari/Naquada etc era, which leads into/up to Dynasty 0 and so on.`Also like you say everyone is doing biological affinities, as it ties into so many "contemporary" debates or discussions. The dude who asked about the peopling of Egypt seems a prime example- he wasnt so much interested in the material aspects, and the responses likewise immediately glommed on to bio-affinity angles, i.e "Black.." Finally the academic world itself does not pump out as much on the far predynastic, relatively speaking, compared to protoDynastic/dynastic. A lack of new material may reflect a space where academia is not pumping out much new as far as relative volume. The students with full network access to journals etc ain't putting themselves out either- maybe because few are getting paid for all the time put in.
Still there may be some angles on the pre-neolithic side you can work- like maybe:
--Foundational religious angle including tie-ins with ancient NE african practices, mummification in the Sahara
--Climate angle- changes in the Nile Valley, Sahara, the "Wild Nile", Saharan pump, etc
--Nabata Playa angle and implications for religion, pastoralism, material culture, calendars
--Aqualithic/Saharan angle- including what Kevin Macdonald calls a "Trans-Saharan Techno Complex (See book David OConnor, Andrew Reid. "Ancient Egypt in Africa") of lithics, tools etc covering a great swathe of Saharan Africa in a general sense
--Lithic complexes in Egypt, Nile Valley, Nubian Complex and nearby Palestine
--Pastoralism and domestication angle- per your link above
--Contrasts angle- rather than a linear hunter-gatherer=> Pastoralist=> Agriculturalist progression, pre-dynastic Nile Valley had them all operating at same time
--Trade with Mesopotamia angle. See book (Samuel Mark - From Egypt to Mesopotamia- A Study of Predynastic Trade Routes (1997).
--OOA angle- Egypt or the Nile Valley as an important "Out Of Africa" migration gateway or pathway
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
I don't think it does a good job at narrowing down the specifics. I would like to do a deep dive into this region concentrating on the archeological diversity in a way that deconstructs the idea of Predynastic Egypt (1) Being a singular thing and (2) Having a Technological explosion during the Neolithic with widely known Badari/Naqada. I want to focus on archeology and the Association of Fossilized humans or human activity with distinct material cultures.
In a way, the article i write will probably STOP at the old Kingdom.
Are their any concepts or peer reviewed Text that someone would like to see included? Something interesting that always eludes these "origin" discussions.
I agree with everyone else here-- Wikipedia being a "free" encyclopedia means that that the entries are free to everyone not just experts to edit including ideologues. Even years ago when I was a university student I was warned by biology professors about how some entries on species of microorganisms and genetics can't be trusted so of course more "controversial" issues like the population origins of Egypt are open to question.
The funny thing is that far more accurate information about your topic is discussed and disseminated in this forum than anything on Wikipedia or even most Egyptology sites!
By the way Beyoku, I think a good time period to look at is the Epipaleolthic that is just prior to the Neolithic. I personally believe something went on in that time period in terms of population changes and expansions. For example, we see a lot more Sub-Saharan types in the Nile Valley via Jebel Sahaba Culture and as far north as the Fayum via Qarunian Culture, but then North African types seem to spring up with the Fayum Neolithic and Badarian Cultures. Of course the latter populations didn't just spring out of nowhere as we see such types as far south as Upper Nubia in with the Kadruka Culture. Then we have the issue of the Natufians of the Levant themselves. Even the editors of Wikipedia have admitted this much: Epipaleolithic Natufians carried parthenocarpic figs from Africa to the southeastern corner of the Fertile Crescent, c. 10,000 BC.
Then there is the fact that the Natufians carry predominantly African uniparental lineages (paternal E-M123 & maternal L2a) even though autosomally they have no "Sub-Saharan" ancestry the same as ancient North Africans.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Beyoku, are you still working on your paper?
You pretty much addressed my queries and claims in your paper on the Kulubnarti study here I am not a geneticist, but after reading thousands of publications I have always had questions about how and why things are done. For instance, at the 12:00 minute mark we noticed a group of many Ancient samples included but there is an absence of Taforalt and early and late Neolithic Moroccans? How do we know their "Western Eurasian related ancestry" is not North West African derived if Ancient North West Africans are not part of the analysis. Furthermore why not also include the East African Pastoral Neolithic populations? Considering the North East African nature of some of the Pastoral Neolithic remains I would be interested if they too have ancestry that could be related to these Egyptian samples included. Or maybe the Nilotic Ancestry is related to this Pastoral populations and not the Dinka?
Another thing that is missing from this analysis is any type of extended African genetic substructure in the form of ADMIXTURE. Similar to the Pastoral Neolithic, the Dinka/Natufian dichotomy of North East Africans and or southward migrating Saharans assumes a model in which these North African populations don't have any autochthonous North African genetic substructure. This narrative is then applied to populations dominated by autochthonous North African Y-Chromosomes and Mitochondrial lineages.
I find it very odd that they are quick to label this autosomal signature as "West Eurasian" or "West Eurasian related" yet the uniparental markers are all clearly African and shared with Sub-Saharans no less as I noted in my prior post (E-M123 & L2a) in addition there is the presence of Hemoglobin Beta Sickle (HBS) alleles-- all but one are African in origin-- yet not only are endemic to North Africa but spill out into Southwest Asia as well.
The only HBS variety said to be Eurasian in origin is the Arab-Indian one yet due to it's similarity to its African siblings, I personally believe that it's as much "Eurasian" as 'Basal Eurasian'.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Epipaleolithic Natufians carried parthenocarpic figs from Africa to the southeastern corner of the Fertile Crescent, c. 10,000 BC.
Then there is the fact that the Natufians carry predominantly African uniparental lineages (paternal E-M123 & maternal L2a) even though autosomally they have no "Sub-Saharan" ancestry the same as ancient North Africans.
What are the references for the figs, and also the Natufian E-M123 & L2?
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some Upper Pleistocene aDNA from Northeast Africa would be nice. Until we got some, the aDNA software will probably keep modeling populations in the region as simple crosses between Natufian/PPNB on the one hand and East Africans/Nilotes on the other (with maybe an additional Iberomaurisian component if the modelers think to include them as well). The programs' output can only be as good as the input they're receiving.
About maritime movements in the Neolithic: There is an ongoing project mapping the spread of megalithic culture around the coasts of Europe. Radiocarbon dating and genetics are among the tools used in the project.
quote:New research suggests that long-distance sea voyages began in Europe as early as the Stone Age, when around 6,000 years ago people began building large stone monuments (megaliths). The NEOSEA project will examine Neolithic seafaring and maritime technology, i.e. during the Stone Age, and their role in shaping a new and interconnected world of megalithic societies.
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Some Upper Pleistocene aDNA from Northeast Africa would be nice. Until we got some, the aDNA software will probably keep modeling populations in the region as simple crosses between Natufian/PPNB on the one hand and East Africans/Nilotes on the other (with maybe an additional Iberomaurisian component if the modelers think to include them as well). The programs' output can only be as good as the input they're receiving.
These days I dont care too much about the model so long as people know its the Model. The real point is the archeology. People simply understanding who went where. For instance what use is discussion on the phenotype of Out of African migrations if the people you are discussing it with don't know when and where OUt of Africa migrations even took place from?
Instead of old tired discussions about race and naqada Badarian i would like to encompass data such as this:
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. I want to not go deep into the Biological origins aspect but rather simply speak of the human Fossils and material culture, what they contributed, what was found in what region, when it was found, the spread of the material culture from region A to B...the technology involved, lithics pottery, agriculture, animal husbandry etc.
Printer-friendly view of this topic