posted
Badarian government and religious evolution Stretching between El-Matmir and El-Etmanieh are the cemeteries of one of the Predynastic's most remarkable cultures. Originally regarded as having lacked hierarchical structures, the Badarian remains (5500-4000 BC) exhibit characteristics of social complexity. In 1992 Wendy Anderson published the results of her investigation into the spatial distribution and temporality of grave goods from 18 cemeteries at Badari, Matmar and Mostagedda. Differential frequencies in goods distribution are evident between as well as within various age groups. These observations are not typical of an egalitarian society, whose structure is based upon age seniority and respect, but are indicative of economic and social inequalities. Whilst the Badarians had semi- or fully permanent community leaders, the extent of inherited prestige requires further investigation. When originally described by Brunton and Caton-Thompson, the cemeteries also yielded valuable insights into the ideology of the Badarians. Cattle, dogs and sheep, amongst others, were found covered in graves in the cemeteries. Amulets with animal heads, like gazelle and hippopotami, were found with the human skeletal remains. These findings, together with the stone palettes on which cosmetic materials were grounded, form the essential components from which the Nagada and Dynastic ideologies would emerge and which are later manifested in the Narmer Palette. Another foreshadowing of the Nagada culture was the orientation of the human burials, with the body facing south and the face, west. The pottery from the Badarian graves is very elequent, with their reddish-brown bodies and black-tipped rims. The combed features are those of geometric patterns, whose ideological significance is as yet undetermined. Pottery itself was not mass-produced by a community of craftsmen operating under the control of a hierarchical, city-state bureaucracy. Thus, although the Badarian leaders exerted sufficient control to appropriate large quantities of items for their graves, it had not yet reached the high degree of centralisation which is later seen. This would be due in part to the fact that whilst the descendent Nagada cultures were sedementary, the Badarians embarked upon seasonal rounds, moving with their livestock and conducting their agricultural practices. It is also during the Badarian that the first evidence for copper working is found in Upper Egypt. Although items such as awls and pins could conceivably have their origin in Palestine, copper ores are present in the Eastern Desert. When it is considered that sites from the corresponding time range in Lower Egypt have a lack of such items, it is probably more feasible to theorise an independent centre of copper working in Upper Egypt. Thus whilst the Badarian sites do not encompass the scale of its Nagada descendent, nevertheless the attributes which the Badarians developed internally and assimilated from other groups, such as the desert communities they would have been in contact with, helped lay the future ideological and societal differentials and structures. Although they were mobile, the Badarian society was unequal and its cemeteries reveal the essential fascination with and veneration of animals which would later play such a prominent role in the mural representation and mythology of the Nagada and Dynastic periods.
"...late paleolithic remains from Egypt indicate characteristics which distinguish them clearly from their European counterparts at 30,000 and 20,000 years BP... These distinguishing characteristics, commonly called `Negroid,' are shared with later Nile valley and more southerly groups... Epipaleolithic `mesolithic' Nile valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key craniofacial characteristics."
(S.O.Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships", History in Africa 20 (1993), page 135).
Rhi_Sarah Member # 3510
posted
I'm going to make myself seem like a total idiot now i'm sure...Who and what were badarians?
ausar Member # 1797
posted
Badarians is an early pre-dyanstic culture that existed south of Asyut. This is one of the oldest cultural centers in Upper Egypt during the pre-dyanstic period. It was these pre-dyanstic cultures that jump started the cultures of dyanstic Egypt. Read the link clearly so you can get a good clue of whom they were.
neo*geo Member # 3466
posted
bump++
Amwa Member # 3287
posted
Ausar,
Is there a book you can recommend on pre-dynastic badarian culture?..You mention Keita a lot but are anthropologist who dispute his findings?
Horemheb Member # 3361
posted
Ausar, I'm sure you are aware that Cavalli-Sforaz contends that black in northeast Africa are 40% cacusaian. If we add that in to the caucasian population that existed in lower Egypt would we not get, at the least, a prepondance of casuasian genes in AE as a whole? Using this reasoning the argument that 'black may not really mean black' would carry some weight.
Osiris II Member # 3079
posted
This must be a record! It only took Horemheb 5 postings to bring up the subject of black culture...
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Ausar, I'm sure you are aware that Cavalli-Sforaz contends that black in northeast Africa are 40% cacusaian. If we add that in to the caucasian population that existed in lower Egypt would we not get, at the least, a prepondance of casuasian genes in AE as a whole? Using this reasoning the argument that 'black may not really mean black' would carry some weight.
Interesting, but not unexpected. There have always been genetic exchange beteen those areas for a very long time! I would be very interested to see how the Nordic "caucasian" gene fits into this picture since they compare the "mediterranean" caucasian as if its the purest caucasian, but use certain west and "sub-saharan" african Negroes (ones whom they think only represent the "pure negro stock" to represent the other side of the argument! This is not a balanced and controlled research! Just something to think about from a scientific point of view! I am done with race issues and will be on a hiatus to complete my research and study for my boards exam. Hear from you guys in June!
------------------ Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley
ausar Member # 1797
posted
Horemheb said:''Ausar, I'm sure you are aware that Cavalli-Sforaz contends that black in northeast Africa are 40% cacusaian. If we add that in to the caucasian population that existed in lower Egypt would we not get, at the least, a prepondance of casuasian genes in AE as a whole? Using this reasoning the argument that 'black may not really mean black' would carry some weight.''
Ausar responds: '' Cavalli Sfoza is talking about the Horn of Africa not Egypt or Sudan. Understand the difference please. He does not specify when these so-called caucasoid genes came into the Horn,but simply says they exist. Most likley they came during a later date and not from the Neolithic. Cavalli Sfoza also points out in his book that musdt of the Central Sahara was negriod and that we don't know much about this population,and this is most likely where the Badarian people come from.
Charlie_Bass Member # 3897
posted
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Horemheb said:''Ausar, I'm sure you are aware that Cavalli-Sforaz contends that black in northeast Africa are 40% cacusaian. If we add that in to the caucasian population that existed in lower Egypt would we not get, at the least, a prepondance of casuasian genes in AE as a whole? Using this reasoning the argument that 'black may not really mean black' would carry some weight.''
Ausar responds: '' Cavalli Sfoza is talking about the Horn of Africa not Egypt or Sudan. Understand the difference please. He does not specify when these so-called caucasoid genes came into the Horn,but simply says they exist. Most likley they came during a later date and not from the Neolithic. Cavalli Sfoza also points out in his book that musdt of the Central Sahara was negriod and that we don't know much about this population,and this is most likely where the Badarian people come from.
"Caucasoid" genes observed in Horn of Africa populations haven't been satisfactorily attributed as in its not known whether its due to a recent or ancient common ancestry. In any case, the earliest populations of south Arabia, from whence the "Caucasoid" mixture has been attributed, were not skeletally "Caucasoid," although genetically their genepools group closer with populations called "Caucasoids." If people are going to say "black may not really mean black' would carry some weight" when refering to Horn of Africa populations, the same must be said in reverse for populations inhabiting the coastal areas on the opposite side of the Red Sea, since migrations occured biodirectionally. "Caucasoid" genes processed in Ethiopians and Horn of Africa populations may just as well be African, since all non-Africans carry a subset of the genes observed in East African populations, with a decreasing gradient as one moves farther east from East Africa, via the Out of Africa migrations. This means populations of the Horn of Africa and southwest Arabia may indeed share a common ancestry, a common ancestry which had its origins in East Africa. Therefore it makes little sense to use terms like "Caucasoid" and Negroid when referring to genes and ancient DNAs, since both terms refer to skeletal representations of human populations. Its not always posible to connect a specific set of genes to a phenotype. Look at Melanesians and sub-Saharan Africans, very identical in phenotype, but very DISTANTLY related genetically. In fact, Melanesians are more closely related to Europeans than to sub-Saharan Africans.
In closing, one should be careful quoting genetic studies labelling genes as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" as there is no sure way of positively confirming that a gene is "Caucasoid" or Negroid.
[This message has been edited by Charlie_Bass (edited 29 March 2004).]
Keino
posted
quote:Originally posted by Charlie_Bass: "Caucasoid" genes observed in Horn of Africa populations haven't been satisfactorily attributed as in its not known whether its due to a recent or ancient common ancestry. In any case, the earliest populations of south Arabia, from whence the "Caucasoid" mixture has been attributed, were not skeletally "Caucasoid," although genetically their genepools group closer with populations called "Caucasoids." If people are going to say "black may not really mean black' would carry some weight" when refering to Horn of Africa populations, the same must be said in reverse for populations inhabiting the coastal areas on the opposite side of the Red Sea, since migrations occured biodirectionally. "Caucasoid" genes processed in Ethiopians and Horn of Africa populations may just as well be African, since all non-Africans carry a subset of the genes observed in East African populations, with a decreasing gradient as one moves farther east from East Africa, via the Out of Africa migrations. This means populations of the Horn of Africa and southwest Arabia may indeed share a common ancestry, a common ancestry which had its origins in East Africa. Therefore it makes little sense to use terms like "Caucasoid" and Negroid when referring to genes and ancient DNAs, since both terms refer to skeletal representations of human populations. Its not always posible to connect a specific set of genes to a phenotype. Look at Melanesians and sub-Saharan Africans, very identical in phenotype, but very DISTANTLY related genetically. In fact, Melanesians are more closely related to Europeans than to sub-Saharan Africans.
In closing, one should be careful quoting genetic studies labelling genes as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" as there is no sure way of positively confirming that a gene is "Caucasoid" or Negroid.
[This message has been edited by Charlie_Bass (edited 29 March 2004).]
I have made that point over and over on this site only to fall on deaf ears. Lets re cap the genetic not phenotypic threory! 1)Africans/blacks vary genetically more then anyone collective groups. This is FACT! One group can have genes that are not present or rare in another. I am not talking about appearance just genetics! 2)Everyone comes from Africans/Blacks(yes even caucasians). How do we know that the genes we call caucasian is just actually an african marker that East african had originally and spread to the middle east and southern europe only to be more concentrated in Southern europe due to population shift dynamics? This is very likely if we were to study race and genetics from a point of view in which we study the evolution of our species. Knowing what we do about evolution, genetics and migrations it is imperative that when we do genetic studies, we must represent all sides equally and consistently. Middle easterners and southern europeans are not the "prototype for any "original or old" gene as they are a combination of two extremes; the latter much less than the earlier! Nothern europeans can be looked at as the extreme of the caucasian or pure typical white. When doing a controlled (or double blind where applicable) research on genetics, it is biased and non-controlled not to use all the subjects in the continuum. Until I see genetic research showing the relationship between all in question, from the blue-black to the lilly-white, I have little faith in any of them to prove origins of any so called marker heritage genes that we designate caucasian or negro.
Now I'm offically going on hiatus- LOL I mean it this time!
posted