Ancient Egyptians as non-'blacks'

[zarahan]

My understanding of 'black' (like Snowden) is dark skin.

But even under this narrow definition, a vast number in Egypt were "black
like the Egyptian scribe Nakht below. And the approach is profoundly
non-scientific and even lacking in common sense, for black people are
not limited to only one shade. Here again, the "true negro" fallacy that
undergirds such thinking is exposed.




And tropical proportions are also found in the north as well:





In an African context: 'blacks' are those that have dark brown pigmentation and are adapted to tropical latitude (i.e. Sub-Saharan Africa).

And the fallacy you push is clear on 3 counts:

1-- Egypt itself falls partially within the tropical zone so any "adaptation to tropical latitude" is itself, an adaptation to EGYPTIAN conditions

2--The founding peoples who populated Kemet as the many cited scholars show came from just such "tropical latitudes"- from farther south

3-- Tropical Africans are not static entities- they move around at will, unlimited by any climatic "apartheid" constructs



As Snowden points out - 'blacks' are synonymous with aethiops ("Burnt faced", dark skinned) in Greco-Roman literature. However the ancient Egyptians were not considered to be aethiops, as most were a light brown colour.

Who says most were light brown in color? How do you define "light"? Cite a credible source.
It wont make a difference though, for if the tropical Africans moved
to lower UV areas and acquired somewhat lighter skin, they are still
tropical Africans. And said tropical Africans have the most skin color
diversity BUILT-IN in the world. Your notion, and that of Snowden's
is obsolete and fallacious.


The simple fact of the matter is that most ancient egyptians were too light skinned to be considered 'black' or 'tropical' (unless you consider the southern Upper Egyptians who were darker)
But who says brown skin is somehow "non-black"? A social construct
such as "black" fully incorporates different shades and ranges. Your or
Snowden's argument based on social construct- contradicts itself. Even common
dictionary definitions of "black people" recognize such a range.

------------------------------------------------- --------------------------

------------------------------------------------- --------------------------



Even the Greeks and Romans recognized this, hence they distinguished Egyptians to the aethiops (blacks) to their south.

Sure, they used their own social construct understanding, but
modern data as detailed above, show the Egyptians to be indigenous
tropical Africans. People who prefer the social construct "black" as conservative
mainstream Egyptologist Redford says, are not at all unreasonable, in that use.


Zaharan is also wrong with the "true negro" claim. Snowden recognized a variety of facial features among the aethiops (blacks). They didn't all have wide noses and woolly hair, however they all had dark skin.

Actually it is clear Snowden is working off the stereotypical
"true negro" construct. Even the "aethiops" he references did not ALL
have dark skin, They came in a range. And how "dark" is "dark?"
Is the man below from the 11th Dynasty posted by Djehuti on ES
"too black" for you or Snowden to be Egyptian?
On what grounds would you disqualify this man as "too black to be Egyptian"?



Sorry man. Not "light-skin-ned" enough to qualify..


Below are some Egyptian kids. According to you and Snowden they
are "too black to be Egyptian." On what grounds do you disqualify
these people beside from your own opinion?


Sorry kids, y'all "too black" to be Egyptian..

[Deleted]

The fallacy of your notion is plain to see. Even if a 7000-6000 repopulation
is accepted, (cite some evidence on this claim, but as will be seen below, it will not
make much difference) then "'repopulation" would be by people from THE SOUTH or
Sahara who had tropically adapted proportions. "Repopulation" would be by the very
same tropical people.. lol.. And Holliday's long term observation lends no support to
your notion. The tropical peoples who populated Kemet DID and for "long term"
have said proportions before they came to Kemet. Taking their "long term" proportions
with them, they could thus "repopulate" at will.

During the aridification of Egypt after the last humid phase (8000 BP), there was a depopulation. The main refuge area was the Sudanese Sahara (north Nubia) because this region still had a monsoon climate, as well as humid territory further south.

"Retreating monsoonal rains caused the onset of desiccation of the Egyptian Sahara at 5300 B.C.E. Prehistoric populations were forced to
the Nile valley or ecological refuges and forced to exodus into the Sudanese Sahara where rainfall and surface water were still sufficient."
www.meteor.iastate.edu/classes/ge415/papers/Kuper_Kropelin_Science06.pdf

There was an "exodus" into the Sudanese Sahara between 8000 - 7000 years ago and most of the remaining Egyptian settlements were in the extreme south of Upper Egypt. The few settlements in Middle or Lower Egypt were only short-term and sparsely populated.

An earlier depopulation also took place during the terminal Pleistocene. The Saharan region has a very unstable climate.

UT, the
Africans who populated, or "repopulated" Kemet did. THEY
had enough "long term" time to do so. lol...

No, the point is they didn't. The ancient Egyptians had tropical limb ratios because Egypt during prehistory was cyclically [re]occupied from the south (i.e. Sub-Saharan Africa, or more specifically Nubia) with major interrupted settlement. So "evolutionary conservative" adaptive traits never had enough time to change in the population. More "plastic" adaptive traits however modified, which is why the ancient Egyptians while retaining tropical limbs, were not tropical or 'black' in skin colour (unless you include the southern Upper Egyptians).

[Deleted]

Well I don't want to get into picture spams. I already quoted Snowden:

"As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the
physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black. Ancient Egyptians, like their modern descendants, varied in complexion from a light Mediterranean type, to a light brown in Middle Egypt, to a darker brown in southern Egypt."

Most Middle Egyptians appear in artwork as a (reddish) light brown, Upper Egyptians as mahogany to dark brown at the extreme south. The Lower Egyptians, especially from the Mediterranean coastal region or Nile delta are an olive, basically a brown-white.

Who is 'black'? Excluding the south Upper Egyptians, Snowden points out that Nubian-Egyptian intermarriages occurred. These are the 'black people' of Egypt. The majority of ancient Egyptians though were either (reddish) light brown or olive complexion, not 'black'.

[anansi]

@ Ben you keep saying that the ancient Kemities were too lite-skinned to be black, how about what science have to say on the matter we already gave you the science on body types indicative of southern tropical origins below is a study from Mekotal and Vermehren on the Melanin content of their skin cells,a test 1st carried out by Diop btw.
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren
Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2,
Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany
Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004

Abstract
During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were
sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly
developed methods. Furthermore, three fixatives were tested with each of the rehydration fluids.
Meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and a placenta were used for this study. The rehydration and
fixation procedures were uniform for all methods.

Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology
headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles
in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three
types of tissues were sampled from different
mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and
placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the
mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approxi-
mately 1550-1080 BC).

Skin
Skin sections showed particularly good tissue
preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had
already separated from the dermis, the remaining
epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1).

The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
To evaluate the influence of postmortum tissue

One more thing you mentioned upper kemet as being Black..or as close to black as you will admit..but guess what Upper Kemet was the capital the more populated center of the nation not the Delta,atleast not until the time on the Greeks did the population density shift to the far north.

One can clearly see by how they arrange their cities from 1 ~ 22 going all the way down north to restart the count from 1~20 the direction 
they followed from Ta-Seti the 1st settlement and land of the Bow aka "Nubia"  the first nome now known as Elephantine.

Also I get the feeling when you used the Greek term Aethiop  you are thinking of some high land Ethiopians of the Horn today if that's the case then you are so wrong as the primary Ethiopia that the Greeks were familiar with is non other than Kush/Meroitic folks south of Kemet proper.

[anansi]

Ben said

Ancient sources also differentiate clearly
between people who lived along the coastal areas of northwest
Africa (i.e., modern Libya to Morocco) and those who inhabited
the interior. "Aethiops," it should be emphasized, with few exceptions, was applied neither to Egyptians nor to inhabitants of
northwest Africa, such as Moors, Numidians, or Carthaginians.

Oh really??
All in the family...heads and founders of some European families that is..some may have well pre-dated the Islamic invasion of 711 A.D can't prove it for now but some may very well go back to the Roman era.

Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/25/who-moors?page=5#ixzz2x2Edf8Km
All Blacks were Moors
But Not all Moors were Black.

Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/25/who-moors?page=5#ixzz2x2EE7nPu

Orkneyinga saga

Moors vs Vikings

Once both parties were on board there was fierce fighting,the people on the Dromond being Saracens,whom we called infdels of Mohammed, among them a good many black men,who put up a strong resistance.

Earling,honored aimer of spears,eagerly advanced toward the vassel in victory,with banners of blood;the black worriors,brave lads we captured or killed,crimsoning our blades,busey with this Dromond business our blades we bloodied on the blacks.

“Grieve not at this, poor wretch, and with thine own hand give thy wife the potion whatever is be for did she choose to bear her leaping children in her womb thou wouldst, perchance, become the sire of an Ethiop, a blackamoor would soon be your sole heir.”

- Juvenal, Satire VI, lines 596 – 600

“One of them, with wooly hair, like a Moor, seems to be the son of Santra, the cook. The second, with a flat nose and thick lips, is the image of Pannicus, the wrestler . . . of the two daughters, one is black . . . and belongs to Crotus, the flute player.”

- Martial, VI, 39.

“When tired of each noblest matron, (Gildo) hands her over to the Moors. These Sidonian mothers, married in Carthage City, must needs be mate with barbarians. He thrusts upon me an Ethiopian son-in-law. This hideous hybrid affects the cradle.”
Claudian.

Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/25/who-moors?page=3#ixzz2x2D8mfKh [/quote]


THE PRESENCE OF AFRICAN INDIVIDUALS

IN PUNIC POPULATIONS FROM THE ISLAND

OF IBIZA (SPAIN): CONTRIBUTIONS FROM

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

www.raco.cat/index.php/Mayurqa/article/viewFile/122749/169902

A lot of goodies here folks.



Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/114/book-quotes-on-carthaginians#ixzz2x2H5cucs

[zarahan]

Ben says:
There was an "exodus" into the Sudanese Sahara between 8000 - 7000 years ago and most of the remaining Egyptian settlements were in the extreme south of Upper Egypt. The few settlements in Middle or Lower Egypt were only short-term and sparsely populated.
An earlier depopulation also took place during the terminal Pleistocene. The Saharan region has a very unstable climate.

But even if all the above is true, as I said, makes no difference.
The people who returned to "repopulate" were tropical Africans.


No, the point is they didn't. The ancient Egyptians had tropical limb ratios because Egypt during prehistory was cyclically [re]occupied from the south (i.e. Sub-Saharan Africa, or more specifically Nubia) with major interrupted settlement. So "evolutionary conservative" adaptive traits never had enough time to change in the population. More "plastic" adaptive traits however modified, which is why the ancient Egyptians while retaining tropical limbs, were not tropical or 'black' in skin colour (unless you include the southern Upper Egyptians).

But even if they cycled in and out they STILL had tropical proportions.
If they were in a tropical environment, and as we have seen Egypt is
partly in that zone, they had plenty of time for the conservative
adaptive traits to take hold, regardless of whether they cycled in,
out, around, up or down. Makes no difference. Their characteristic
tropical proportions are STILL in place. Scholars also note how the
folks further south had those proportions as well, and these people came
into Egypt. Cycling in and out is irrelevant- you can have the tropical
proportions coming in, and still cycle in and out.

And tropical proportions or "blackness" as you put it, characterize most of the
peoples of sub-Saharan Africa or in the tropical zone. Which is why
based on limb proportions ancient Egyptians cluster first with Black Americans
before they do Europeans or Middle Easterners. Other more plastic traits and
temperate climes change other features, but those conservative limb proportions
are not going anywhere. Either way you can't get around the facts.

What you say actually helps my case:
here was an "exodus" into the Sudanese Sahara between 8000 - 7000 years ago and most of the remaining Egyptian settlements were in the extreme south of Upper Egypt. The few settlements in Middle or Lower Egypt were only short-term and sparsely populated.
You are trying to make out that the people had only 2000 -3000 years of "cycling" in
and out, but your claim fails to take account of what was there before, and
the movement of people from the south ARRIVING WITH tropical proportions.
If they had an exodus to the extreme south, they went, again, deeper into the tropical
zone, and then returned from thence further north, STILL having tropical proportions.
No "cycle" scenario you come up with makes any difference.

------------------------------------ --------------

Blackness" is itself a social construct that incorporates a range of color
as well recognized definitions recognize. "Black people" can have brown skin.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Who is 'black'? Excluding the south Upper Egyptians, Snowden points out that Nubian-Egyptian intermarriages occurred. These are the 'black people' of Egypt. The majority of ancient Egyptians though were either (reddish) light brown or olive complexion, not 'black'.

Why would you exclude the peoples of Southern Egypt?
they are just as Egyptian as everybody else. Your own reference
--Snowden contradicts your reasoning. Up above you say:

. Snowden recognized a variety of facial features among the aethiops (blacks). They didn't all have wide noses and woolly hair, however they all had dark skin.

If therefore there were many Egyptians with dark skin then they
all qualify as "black." But then you try to say only Nubian and Egyptian
mixes are the "true blacks" of Egypt. But then you talk about the
southerners who are "black." You are contradicting yourself within
your own narrative. And BLACK AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT INCLUDES
PEOPLE WITH BROWN SKIN.

And dark-skinned Egyptians are just as 'Egyptian' as anybody else.
And Nubian-Egyptian intermarriages are no marker of "blackness"
for there were plenty of dark Nubians AND Egyptians to go around.
Your reasoning is ludicrous. Again, who says the majority were "reddish"
and on what credible grounds do you say people are "too black" to be Egyptian?



Sorry man. Not "light-skin-ned" enough to qualify..

[Deleted]

I presume you are familiar with the rules of Bergmann and Allen having posted about tropical adapated limbs. The same rules apply to the surface of the head as demonstrated by Kenneth L. Beals and other anthropologists. Populations from the (north) temperate zone have a mean cephalic index 4 to 5 units higher than those from the tropics, meaning they are rounder or more spherical headed.

Here's a useful map which shows the temperate-tropic divisions (subtropics are intermediate):



Beals, K. L. (1972). “Head Form and Climatic Stress”. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 37. pp. 85-92.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330370111/abstract

“Beals (1972) evaluated the climatic adaptation model with a worldwide sample of 339 populations. The climatic associations were highly significant. For example, ethnic groups exposed to winter frost have a mean cephalic index that is 4.3 units higher than those living within the tropics. The conclusions are independently supported by the data of Hiernaux for Africa and by Crognier for populations of Europe and the Mediterranean.” (Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., Dodd, S. M. [1983]. “Climate and the Evolution of Brachycephalization”. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 62. pp. 425-437.)

"Beals (1972) observed an inverse relationship between the cephalic index and climatic factors and showed that the longer head (dolichocephalic) is predominant in hotclimatic regions and the broader head (mesocephalic or brachycephalic) is predominant in less hot regions. Thus, cephalic index is apparently correlated with climatic stress and follows theecological rules of Allen and Bergmann. It is generally expected that under cold stress,the most advantageous head shape wouldbe of a round type (brachycephalic), since this most closely approximates thespherical ideal. Under hot climatic conditions, a long head would be more advantageous." (Bharati, S., Som, S., Bharati, P., & Vasulu, T. S. [2001]. "Climate and head form in India". American Journal of Human Biology, 13(5), 626-634.)

Franz Boas showed that head shape (i.e. cephalic index) is considerably plastic, and can change in a few generations. While some have criticized his studies, they still reconise that the shape of the head is not "evolutionary conservative". So a few thousand years would presumably be more than enough for tropical long-heads to modify to more spherical, if they moved into a more temperate area.

The largest study of its kind - Raymond Dart in 1939 recorded the cephalic index of 2,861 Egyptian skulls spanning the pre-dynastic and all dynasties.

Dart, Raymond A. [1939]. "Population fluctuation over 7000 years in Egypt". Trans Roy Soc S Africa: 95-145.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00359193909519788

I do not have the full results of this study, but they showed that:

* Only 1% of pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls are brachycephalic (round or spherical): El Amrah 1% (101 skulls), Nagada, 1.9% (314 skulls), El Badari 0% (79 skulls).

* From Dynasty I to VI (Old Kingdom), brachycephaly does also not exceed a single percent. However during the First Intermediate Period of Egypt 2181–2055 BC or Dynasty IX, 11.6% of skulls are brachycephalic or round.

And while the majority are dolichocephalic, there is a sizable amount of borderline or low mesocephalic skulls, even in some (early) dynasties reaching 40%. Basically this supports Beals data; we should expect the cephalic index of the ancient Egyptians at subtropical latitude, being more temperate than the tropics, to grade into mesocephaly. So they are less long-headed than 'blacks'.

In conclusion, in head-form and skin pigmentation the ancient egyptians were evidently not tropical, but more temperate adapted.

[anastasiaescrava]

Did lioness follow us over here from egyptsearch?

[zarahan]

lol, I think "lioness" is operating under a few accounts...

[anansi]

Ben said

And while the majority are dolichocephalic, there is a sizable amount of borderline or low mesocephalic skulls, even in some (early) dynasties reaching 40%. Basically this supports Beals data; we should expect the cephalic index of the ancient Egyptians at subtropical latitude, being more temperate than the tropics, to grade into mesocephaly. So they are less long-headed than 'blacks'.

In conclusion, in head-form and skin pigmentation the ancient egyptians were evidently not tropical, but more temperate adapted.

This would be good if only science hadn't already said they were not just tropically adapted but "SUPER"Tropically adapted and coupled with The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.

Mind you I hate the terms Negro,Negroid,Caucasoid and Caucasian but the point they are making is the ancient kemitians were the same folks as all other Africans,which migratory,cultural and linguist may I throw in genetics in there for good measure combine to show who they were/are and where they came from.

Ben I have a full study here,not only about crainal matters but dental as well
Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists:
A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery
 link

 The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations con-tend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Pre-dynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not suffi-ciently distinct to consider either non indigenous(Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan)is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Pre dynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990;Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations stud-ied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that,at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacementevents occurred during this time.Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean.

Then again I really didn't need to go get this information since much of it was already provided by Zarahan..and lurkers pls take note, go to the link and download this pdf or book mark it for future reference and study. 

[zarahan]

good reference Brada Anansi- the melanin would be another
factor showing that brachchepaly (roundhead) is well within
ultra-diverse African phenotypic ranges and is not, and never
was "non-African" at all. Yes the latecomers from the outside
as the Dybasties wound down and were defeated would bring variation,
but the original tropical African stock need no outsides to explain
why they all don't look alike..
Looking at ben's argument:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ben said:
In conclusion, in head-form and skin pigmentation the ancient egyptians were evidently not tropical, but more temperate adapted
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NICE TRY, BUT YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS ON 5 COUNTS:

COUNT 1) Brachchepaly is well within the range of African populations,
and is nothing unusual. Africans are the most diverse phenotypically-
Brachycephaly is nothing special and limb proportions and skull variation
can co-exist in several configurations- nothing special..
In fact archaeological surveys have long discovered clear "Negroid"
remains WITH brachycephalic elements. The two can go together, as can
limb proportions and skull variation at the same time. QUOTE:

"I might refer to the occupant of grave 162 in Cemetery 22.
The skull was a short, brachcephalic ovoid, there was definite
prognathism, typical Negro hair and a slight beard confined to the chin."
(_-The Archeological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908. By G. Elliot Smith, F.
Wood Jones.)

"more thickset and short-headed (Bongos, Golos,
Makarakas, with the kindred Zandehs of the Welle region).
No explanation has been offered for their brachycephaly.."
(--Man, past and present By Augustus Henry Keane. 1920.)


"At any rate during the later phases of the
local Later Stone Age contrasting brachycephalic
folk were also present in the region."
-JD Fage. The Later Stone Age in Africa

In short, the phenotypic diversity of Africa puts "negroid"
brachycephalic types well in place in the Nile Valley without
needing any "incoming Caucasoids" to explain African diversity.



COUNT 2) Brachchepaly does not necessarily have a strong correlation with
temperature. In fact skull shape is plastic and children of the same "race"
may show shape variation without any admixture MAY show skull changes as generations
occur. Cultural practices also affect head shape, and cold climate Inuit fail to
follow the alleged temperature rule. QUOTE:

"Crognier also suggested that the correlation between cold and head shape could be improved heat retention of brachchepalic (rounder) head shape found in colder climates; however this argument may not fully account for the phenomenon because cultural practices that protect the head (e.g. hats) are available in cold environments, In addition the Inuit of the Artic are as dolichocephalic (longer heads), as are Africans, suggesting that head shape is not related to environmental temperature. Finally other practices can influence head shape; for example, infant sleeping position can affect ultimate head shape. Also Boas showed the skull shape is highly plastic and can change in only on generation. Children of immigrants to the United States at the end of the nineteenth century were shown to have a different head shape that their parents. This many environmental factors can play a role in shaping head form, and temperature man be only one."
--Noel Cameron. Human Growth and Development. (2002)

In short, temperature is unimpressive as an explanation
of brachchepaly, and must take its place besides numerous
other variables that bear on the issue.



"Not light-skinned enough to be a 'truly' Egyptian farmer.."


COUNT 3) Brachchepalization is also associated with increases in
standard of living such as better diet due to agriculture. Thus a
very plastic feature like Brachchepalization could easily change
for Egyptians as they adopted better diets, including more agriculture.
It should be noted that better diets can be obtained without full-blown
agriculture through more intensive foraging and harvesting,
and indeed the 'negroid' Badari and others enjoyed a rich resource
base prior to farming and sustained relatively high population
densities as they transitioned to more agriculture. Per scholars
Jantz and Jantz 2000:

"In many parts of the world there has been a change toward shorter, broader
crania in the past several thousand years. This change, referred to as
brachycephalization, has been observed in Europe, Asia and America. A common
explanation for this widespread trend is that it reflects functional responses to reduced
masticatory stresses. The model has been formulated by Carlson and Van Gerven,
(1977) based on their Nubian epipaleolithic-Neolithic series. The argument is that
reduced masticatory stresses will result in crania that are shorter and higher in food
producers than in hunters and gatherers. (See also Larsen 1997). Furthermore in
Europe, where the data base is much richer, the period of most intensive
brachycephalization occurs not with the Neolithic, but several thousand years
later during the mediaeval period."
--Jantz and Jantz 2000. The Meaning And Consequences Of Morphological Variation
in “Exploring the Nature of Human Biological Diversity: Myth v. Reality” (AAA Prceedings 2004)

------------ Mo betta Munchies in the Nile Valley-------
QUOTE:
"With the onset of the Neolithic, the dietary
diversity of hunter-gatherers is replaced with
dietary specialization on one or a few cereal
crops and the products of domestic animals...
Increasing sedentism and population density are
almost universally associated with increases in
infectious disease.. and may underpin the the
reduction in stature in the Predynastic period.
Archaeological evidence suggests that the Badarian
civilization had higher population density than
did any other contemporaneous civilizations
(Gabriel, 1987, Hassan 1988)."
--Pinhasi and Stock 2011. Human Bioarchaelogy of the Transition to Agriculture
-----------------------------------

In short, there were plenty of ways for (a) better diets to
cause brachchepalization in the Nile Valley, and (b) if migrants
are a factor, said migrants need not have cone from cold climates
at all. They only need to be people with better, more intensive
food sourcing and this can be richly obtained in the Nile Valley
in various eras, with or without full-blown agriculture.



All kinds of weather over millennia in the Sahara, cool, non-cool.. whatever..
plenty of time and scope to develop diversity and variability in-situ


COUNT 4) Finally, even if temperature is the cause, brachchepalization
as the experts show is highly plastic. The cooler temperatures of the Saharan
zone over time and Egypt as the climate waxed back and forth for millennia,
allowed plenty of scope for the tropical Africans therein, to adapt in-situ,
without needing any cold climate "associates." [The conservative, slower-
changing limb proportions however are evidence of the origin
and makeup of these tropical Africans.

And even if there was migration from cooler climates, the cooler
climes are already built into the broad area in question- within the
millennia long span of Saharan climate fluctuations, plus within the
cooler climes of other Egyptian areas, there was both plenty
of time and scope for people with varying degrees of dolichchepaly
or brachchepaly to appear, without needing any "outside help."



COUNT 5) As a social construct, the construct "blacks" include people
with brown skin, (indeed tropical Africans have the higest skin color
diversity) and the conservative limb proportions of the Egyptians,
which cluster with African-Americans in several studies, speak to the clear'
tropical provenance of the ancient peoples. Social construct, or anthropological
data- makes no difference- same result.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------


That's five strikes against the Brachchepaly argument and other associated claims.

[anastasiaescrava]

I think Cassi is here too...

[Deleted]

What is going on here? We are discussing the average only. Please remember that. Variation exists in all populations; there is no individual trait exclusive to one region. This is why no anthropologist can determine geographical ancestry by only accessing a single skeletal feature - they have to look at several in combination. Your own data on limb proportions uses averages. For example looking at the chart you posted: Europeans have an average brachial index of 74, African-Americans, 77, and ancient Egyptians, 79. This does not though mean there are no Europeans with brachial indexes that match ancient Egyptians. All populations overlap, it is just that they differ in frequency of traits (i.e. how common they appear). Even looking at your table, 'white' Belgians have an average brachial index of 76, two units higher than the European average, and only a figure lower than African-Americans.
Indeed, the fact AA's fall between Europeans and tropical Africans just confirms the extent of their European mixture.


There is no African ethnic group with an average brachycephalic cephalic index. Populations in the [northern] temperate zone have an average cephalic index 4 - 5 units higher than tropical ethnic groups and 2 - 3 units higher than subtropical populations. While brachycephaly exists among African populations, it is rare.

Beals' data which you criticize was independently verified by Hiernaux (1968) for Sub-Saharan Africa and Crognier (1981) for Europe.


“Beals (1972) evaluated the climatic adaptation model with a worldwide sample of 339 populations. The climatic associations were highly significant. For example, ethnic groups exposed to winter frost have a mean cephalic index that is 4.3 units higher than those living within the tropics. The conclusions are independently supported by the data of Hiernaux for Africa and by Crognier for populations of Europe and the Mediterranean.” (Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., Dodd, S. M. [1983]. “Climate and the Evolution of Brachycephalization”. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 62. pp. 425-437.)

It is also supported by the fossil record:

"Previous work (Beals, Smith, and Dodd 1983) has demonstrated that thermoregulatory adaptation in head shape can be
traced through a portion of the fossil record and that the trend
of brachycephalization is partially explained by an increased
occupation of cold environments."

www.oregonstate.info/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

Brachchepaly is well within the range of African populations, and is nothing unusual.

Yes and no. It is within the range of African populations (all populations overlap in variation) but it is unusual. To claim otherwise is daft. Look at any study or the fossil record. How many Upper Palaeolithic African skulls do you know that are brachycephalic? In the other thread you are trying to prove certain fossil skulls from Russia are tropical because they are dolichocephalic. You can't have it both ways. Clearly brachycephaly is unusual/rare among Africans, just like how a long-head is not at all common in Northeast Asia.

Furthermore if you read properly my post, I did not say the Egyptians were commonly brachycephalic. Look at the data I gave you from Dart (1939). Of pre-dynastic Egyptian crania only 1% of El Amrah, 1.9% of Naqada and 0% El Badari skulls are round or spherical. Instead, as I noted: mesocephaly is more prevalent (up to 40%), which is expected since Egypt is at subtropical latitude. Ancient Egypt had a much greater frequency of mesocephaly than southern (tropical) zones.

Based on the available data, I fail to see how the ancient egyptians can be considered tropical when most (excluding south Upper Egyptians) were lighter brown in colour with high proportion of rounder (i.e. low mesocephalic) heads.

In short, the phenotypic diversity of Africa puts "negroid"
brachycephalic types well in place in the Nile Valley without
 needing any "incoming Caucasoids" to explain African diversity.

When the frequency is very low, fine. However as Dart discovered, brachycephaly jumped from a single percent to 11.6% during Dynasty IX. This is the same dynasty that Angel (1972) maintained Mediterranean 'white' people moved into Egypt in recognizable numbers. 

Brachchepaly does not necessarily have a strong correlation with
 temperature.

The coefficient correlation is 0.60 (Beals, Crognier). It is obviously fairly strong, but not great. The frequency distribution of cephalic index is still though shaped strongest by temperature than any other factor. No one denies cultural habits (e.g. cradling), diet and so forth have some affect. Beals (1972) discusses all these in his paper. The same applies to limb sizes. Locomotion to some extent affects crural and brachial indices.

[zarahan]

Ben says:

Variation exists in all populations; there is no individual trait exclusive to one region.
But previously you suggested that dark-skin was not Egyptian.
You certainly drew an "exclusive" barrier than excluded numerous people.

Indeed, the fact AA's fall between Europeans and tropical Africans just confirms the extent of their European mixture.

Completely wrong and shows you do not understand the data. The position of
African-Americans have nothing to do with any "race mix." It has to
do with their deeply embedded ancestral tropical adaptations which are
slow to change. Other African populations like Egyptians show the same
adaptation pattern. That is why they cluster closer together, not because
of any "race mix." The continuum is based on climatic adaptations reflected
genetically, not whether anybody "mixed." This fact is also proven by
NON-African tropical populations with little race mix, such as Melanesians.
They also show cluster with other tropicals and away from Europeans.
Egyptians cluster with other tropical Africans like themselves, first with
those geographically closer in Nubia and the Sudan, but even with other
tropically adapted African descendants thousands of miles distant in America.
African American admixture by the way is nothing earth-shattering- between 6 and 25%
depending on the study looked at (Parra 1998, Norton and Kittles 2005 etc)
White Americans can show up to 20-30% African ancestry depending on the sample used.
But this makes little difference, for limb proportions change so slowly that
admixture has relatively little short-term impact.


Beals' data which you criticize was independently verified by Hiernaux (1968) for Sub-Saharan Africa and Crognier (1981) for Europe.

I criticized HOW you were using Beals data in your argument, what
Beals shows, as I note above is the effect of temperature. But temperature
is merely ONE variable among others, and brachcheplization is a quite plastic
feature, affected by better resource access and living standards, and other
things, including cultural practices. So sure Beals got some temperature correlations.
That is hardly enough to make your argument strong, especially given the highest
diversity of indigenous Africans, and given people moving around.


Instead, as I noted mesocephaly is more prevalent (up to 40%), which is expected since Egypt is at sub tropical latitude. Ancient Egypt had a much greater frequency of mesocephaly than southern (tropical) zones .

But as already shown in detail by credible scholars head shape is
dependent on more than mere temperature. Furthermore people are
not static in the Nile Valley but moved around for millennia, adapting
to varying conditions. Head shape can vary significantly within a
generation, it is quite plastic, unlike limb proportions. The greater
frequency doesn't mean much in terms of your argument.

Based on the available data, I fail to see how the ancient egyptians can be considered tropical when most (excluding south Upper Egyptians) were lighter brown in colour with high proportion of rounder (i.e. low mesocephalic) heads.

Actually based on available data it is hard to see why they should
NOT be considered tropical, and hard to see why "light brown color"
excludes them from being that. Africa has the highest skin color
diversity in the world. Light skin is noting unusual - its BUILT INTO
Africans. Climate is not the sole cause of lighter skin in Africa.
Its BUILT in genetically. Rounder heads are also nothing special-
they are well within the ultra diverse African range, and are quite plastic-
affected by numerous enviro factors.

Most skin color diversity – Quote:
"Regional differences in local within-population [skin color]
diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the
sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both
measures, the average level of within-population diversity is
higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions.
This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation
between within-population diversity and distance from the equator.
Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the
same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits."
-- Relethford JH.(2000). Human skin color diversity is highest in
sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 72(5):773-80.)

And in social construct terms, "negro" or "black" includes
people with brown skin, or light brown skin.


The coefficient correlation is 0.60 (Beals, Crognier). It is obviously fairly strong, but not great.
.
As already noted, temperature is merely one variable. Beals' study
is hardly an earth-shaking measure Her sample showed that angle, others
show other variables. And people moving around the Nile Valley for
millennia would be affected by various temperatures- so temperature doesn't
make the case. A tropical African could move in and out at will, and show
show skull changes within a generation due to more food production.
The fact that the ancient Egyptians show SUPER tropical proportions after
all those millennia, or "super-negroid" proportions to use Robins and Shutes
old terminology, shows that they most definitely are a tropically adapted people,
a marker that is slow to change, unlike highly plastic head shape.

[manaia]

Egyptians are Malayo-Polynesians and Indus Valley [Indo-Asians]. The region has very old Hindi religious practices of animal sacrifices brough along through East Indies. It's really not a mystery or complicated. The graphs being presented are irrelevant to ethnicity. Southeast Africa was settled by another wave of Malayo-Polynesian settlers in Madagascar.