Post by zarahan on May 5, 2014 15:12:43 GMT -5
Djehuti says:
You realize that all this paper does is reaffirm what past African-archaeology experts have been saying for how many decades now?--that the cultures of Egypt represents a continuity with those of Sudan since at least the Khartoum Mesolithic if not earlier. Brandon (Truthcentric) has even reviewed this research and pointed out similarities all stemming from the Khartoum Mesolithic namely in burial practices, harpoons and fishing hooks, and iconography like Nile boats, female figures, and bearded male figures with penis-staches.
Indeed- new confirms old. The more recent papers coming out only confirm and build on
what the previous ones have said along these lines. And the similarities
re the Sudanic Mesolithic have been noted by scholars in the field since
the late 1940s. Apparently the memo hasn't gotten through to some folk
as seen below..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben says:
You were already refuted on this. Lower and Middle Egyptians were not tropically adapted in skin pigmentation, since they were lighter brown. Lower Egyptians on the Mediterranean coast would have been practically indistingushable in skin colour from Cretans or peoples from the Levant. How on earth can people this light in pigmentation be adapted to the intense UV at tropical latitude?
You didn't "refute" anything. You were to the contrary debunked in detail
as shown below, no matter what user account you next come up with. And your
your redundant "question" was dealt with 30 posts ago. People moved from more intense
UV regions to less intense UV regions and experienced some adaptation. They retain
those adaptations in the case of limb proportions, which are very slow to change,
and serve as a clear indicator of their tropical origins. And Lower Egypt has plenty of
dark-skinned people. It does not confirm to your racialist "apartheid" skin color notion
where peoples north and south stay in neat, color coded South African style apartheid zones.
And even without movement the fluctuating climate of the Sahara as well as BUILT-IN African
diversity make for plenty of native variation. Africanshave the highest built-in skin color diversity:
Though affected by natural selection, skin color
variation shows the same pattern of higher African
diversity as found with other traits."
--Relethford JH.. 2001. Human skin color diversity is
highest in sub-Saharan African populations.
Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36.
Let's recap that debunking again:
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1602?page=3
Ben says:
I acknowledged this cline: Lower Egyptians = light brown, Middle Egyptians = medium brown, Upper Egyptians = dark brown.
Lower and Middle Egyptians are not tropically adapted in pigmentation. This is fact.
^This is a distortion and you do not understand how clines work.
Skin color is a gradient- meaning dark skin colors appear in Lower Egypt,
Middle Egypt and Upper Egypt. And furthermore, tropical Africans are not limited
to one skin color they can be black, brown or light brown. Your notion is
to divide Egypt into "apartheid" skin color zones. That notion fails repeatedly.
As scholar Jablonski notes on skin color, Africans show "more genetic diversity than all the rest of the world's people put together. This diversity is also reflected in skin pigmentation. Africans are not uniform or uniformly dark in their skin color. High levels of skin color diversity exist between different populations and also within most sub-Saharan African groups.6 This variation illustrates the complex interactions of evolutionary forces that contribute to patterns of variation in skin color at any point in time."
Jablonski 2012. Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color
We are talking about adaptation, meaning lighter brown skin shades are not ecologically functional in the tropics.
^^Light brown skin shades are actually nothing special in the
tropics, just as dark skin shades ain't special. Furthermore tropical Africans
move around. They do not stick to your conceived apartheid
skin color zones. They are not static entities but move around
at will.
Yes, but that "highest diversity" equates to only 10% of skin variation. 90% of variation instead is found between major geographical regions.
You obviously failed to read his studies properly: Sub-Saharan Africans only cover 10%. Once you compare this to other regions, you see why this mere 10% is "highest". Europe for example only covers something like 1%. 90% of skin pigmentation variation is still inter-continental.
But what you are missing is the fact that the African bloc still has the highest
skin color diversity. If you are comparing continent to continent extremes,
sure there will be a wide extreme between far flung regions like say pale Sweden,
compared to dark Zululand. Who doesn't know this? But when you come to comparisons
WITHIN regions like Africa, then Africans show the highest diversity, as Relethford notes:
Quote:
Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population 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.
No, if they have lighter brown skin shades they aren't tropically adapted
^Wrong again here. Light brown skin color is nothing special in the
tropics- whether it be Africa, or parts of the Philippines, or Vietnam, or parts of India.
The diverse micro-climes of tropical Africa easily accommodate such colors, plus, and in addition
to BUILT-IN African diversity- a pattern with other things. Which is why Relethford
found what he did. And again, Africans move around. They are not confined to your
dubious "color apartheid" zones. On 3 counts, your argument fails:
(a) the built-in skin color diversity of Africans
(b) the variability found in tropical zones
(c) the mobility of Africans who do not sit around in their "designated" apartheid "color zones"
99.9% of African-Americans have European mixture.
30% of White-Americans have African mixture.
Your figures keep changing. First you give a lower percentage
of African Americans- now its 99.9%. You give whites a lower
figure earlier- now its 30%. What other shifting figures you gonna conjure next?
And your link is not to any peer reviewed study but an article by
racialist HBD proponent Steve Sailer- hardly the most objective of sources.
What credible scholar specifically says 99.9% of all African Americans have
European ancestry? WHat you have cited above in this thread
so far says no such thing. But in any event, even if this curious
new figure was true it would make no difference.
Melanesia is in the tropics, 80% of Egypt falls outside. Melanesians are obviously tropically adapted, most Egyptians however are not.
^^But the case of Melanesians undermines your "whiteness is key" model
as the reason Egyptians cluster with African Americans. Most ancient Egyptians
until the tail-end eras of significant outside influence and conquests retain those tropical
adaptations. Just saying "it ain't so" does not change the hard data put on
the floor by scholars.
Face it, Afrocentrists have lost the argument: most ancient Egyptians cannot be considered black, since they were light(er) brown. Most ancient Egyptian cannot be considered "Negroid", since they didn't possess those phenotype features. Finally most ancient Egyptians cannot be considered tropical, since they show adaptation in pigmentation and cranial form to more temperate subtropical latitude.
There is no argument to "lose" - the hard data is what it is. Its certain notions
that fail repeatedly- like the dubious "color apartheid" zones. And brown skin is BUILT-IN
from African people whether via deep rooted genetics, or climate factors. People
who are "black" - whether "black" be conceived in social construct terms, or in
terms of scientific studies in Africa, have the highest within-group skin color
diversity. "Blackness", Negroid" "African"- whatever the terminology- makes
little difference. Such people have that high diversity, from light brown to jet black.
African also have the highest phenotypic diversity as credible scholars cited already
show. And the adaptations in place show tropical adaptations which are slow to change,
and the routine variation that occurs with differing diet, climate AND built-in
diversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- And you are debunking yourself with your own "race mix" notion.
The study in question compared limb proportions and ancient Egyptians cluster
with African Americans. You say it is because the African Americans
are admixed with whites. But if whiteness was the key, as you claim,
the Egyptians should have clustered with whites, not blacks. But
this is not the case at all. In fact, using your own whiteness-key model,
it is not "the white side" that is causing the cluster, but the fact that the
Egyptians are black- that is why they cluster with the African Americans.
Using your own whiteness-key model- the data more indicates that it is
"the black side" that is the controlling factor. Using your model on this
dimension, actually is more supportive of that alternative, and undermines
your argument.
Only limbs. Not in cephalic index or pigmentation.
Wrong again. As already demonstrated limb data proves you wrong,
as well as hard skin color data showing Africans have the highest
levels of within population diversity We have already dealt with the
brachycephalic issue, and as credible scholars show head shape can
vary very quickly die to temperature, or better resources such as diet.
On top of all that is built-in African diversity.
Let 's recap how your brachycephalic thing was debunked earlier 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 in place in various parts of Africa, including 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 highly plastic and children of the
same "race" without any admixture show skull changes as quickly as
within one generation. 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 reource
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.
You realize that all this paper does is reaffirm what past African-archaeology experts have been saying for how many decades now?--that the cultures of Egypt represents a continuity with those of Sudan since at least the Khartoum Mesolithic if not earlier. Brandon (Truthcentric) has even reviewed this research and pointed out similarities all stemming from the Khartoum Mesolithic namely in burial practices, harpoons and fishing hooks, and iconography like Nile boats, female figures, and bearded male figures with penis-staches.
Indeed- new confirms old. The more recent papers coming out only confirm and build on
what the previous ones have said along these lines. And the similarities
re the Sudanic Mesolithic have been noted by scholars in the field since
the late 1940s. Apparently the memo hasn't gotten through to some folk
as seen below..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben says:
You were already refuted on this. Lower and Middle Egyptians were not tropically adapted in skin pigmentation, since they were lighter brown. Lower Egyptians on the Mediterranean coast would have been practically indistingushable in skin colour from Cretans or peoples from the Levant. How on earth can people this light in pigmentation be adapted to the intense UV at tropical latitude?
You didn't "refute" anything. You were to the contrary debunked in detail
as shown below, no matter what user account you next come up with. And your
your redundant "question" was dealt with 30 posts ago. People moved from more intense
UV regions to less intense UV regions and experienced some adaptation. They retain
those adaptations in the case of limb proportions, which are very slow to change,
and serve as a clear indicator of their tropical origins. And Lower Egypt has plenty of
dark-skinned people. It does not confirm to your racialist "apartheid" skin color notion
where peoples north and south stay in neat, color coded South African style apartheid zones.
And even without movement the fluctuating climate of the Sahara as well as BUILT-IN African
diversity make for plenty of native variation. Africanshave the highest built-in skin color diversity:
Though affected by natural selection, skin color
variation shows the same pattern of higher African
diversity as found with other traits."
--Relethford JH.. 2001. Human skin color diversity is
highest in sub-Saharan African populations.
Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36.
Let's recap that debunking again:
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1602?page=3
Ben says:
I acknowledged this cline: Lower Egyptians = light brown, Middle Egyptians = medium brown, Upper Egyptians = dark brown.
Lower and Middle Egyptians are not tropically adapted in pigmentation. This is fact.
^This is a distortion and you do not understand how clines work.
Skin color is a gradient- meaning dark skin colors appear in Lower Egypt,
Middle Egypt and Upper Egypt. And furthermore, tropical Africans are not limited
to one skin color they can be black, brown or light brown. Your notion is
to divide Egypt into "apartheid" skin color zones. That notion fails repeatedly.
As scholar Jablonski notes on skin color, Africans show "more genetic diversity than all the rest of the world's people put together. This diversity is also reflected in skin pigmentation. Africans are not uniform or uniformly dark in their skin color. High levels of skin color diversity exist between different populations and also within most sub-Saharan African groups.6 This variation illustrates the complex interactions of evolutionary forces that contribute to patterns of variation in skin color at any point in time."
Jablonski 2012. Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color
We are talking about adaptation, meaning lighter brown skin shades are not ecologically functional in the tropics.
^^Light brown skin shades are actually nothing special in the
tropics, just as dark skin shades ain't special. Furthermore tropical Africans
move around. They do not stick to your conceived apartheid
skin color zones. They are not static entities but move around
at will.
Yes, but that "highest diversity" equates to only 10% of skin variation. 90% of variation instead is found between major geographical regions.
You obviously failed to read his studies properly: Sub-Saharan Africans only cover 10%. Once you compare this to other regions, you see why this mere 10% is "highest". Europe for example only covers something like 1%. 90% of skin pigmentation variation is still inter-continental.
But what you are missing is the fact that the African bloc still has the highest
skin color diversity. If you are comparing continent to continent extremes,
sure there will be a wide extreme between far flung regions like say pale Sweden,
compared to dark Zululand. Who doesn't know this? But when you come to comparisons
WITHIN regions like Africa, then Africans show the highest diversity, as Relethford notes:
Quote:
Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population 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.
No, if they have lighter brown skin shades they aren't tropically adapted
^Wrong again here. Light brown skin color is nothing special in the
tropics- whether it be Africa, or parts of the Philippines, or Vietnam, or parts of India.
The diverse micro-climes of tropical Africa easily accommodate such colors, plus, and in addition
to BUILT-IN African diversity- a pattern with other things. Which is why Relethford
found what he did. And again, Africans move around. They are not confined to your
dubious "color apartheid" zones. On 3 counts, your argument fails:
(a) the built-in skin color diversity of Africans
(b) the variability found in tropical zones
(c) the mobility of Africans who do not sit around in their "designated" apartheid "color zones"
99.9% of African-Americans have European mixture.
30% of White-Americans have African mixture.
Your figures keep changing. First you give a lower percentage
of African Americans- now its 99.9%. You give whites a lower
figure earlier- now its 30%. What other shifting figures you gonna conjure next?
And your link is not to any peer reviewed study but an article by
racialist HBD proponent Steve Sailer- hardly the most objective of sources.
What credible scholar specifically says 99.9% of all African Americans have
European ancestry? WHat you have cited above in this thread
so far says no such thing. But in any event, even if this curious
new figure was true it would make no difference.
Melanesia is in the tropics, 80% of Egypt falls outside. Melanesians are obviously tropically adapted, most Egyptians however are not.
^^But the case of Melanesians undermines your "whiteness is key" model
as the reason Egyptians cluster with African Americans. Most ancient Egyptians
until the tail-end eras of significant outside influence and conquests retain those tropical
adaptations. Just saying "it ain't so" does not change the hard data put on
the floor by scholars.
Face it, Afrocentrists have lost the argument: most ancient Egyptians cannot be considered black, since they were light(er) brown. Most ancient Egyptian cannot be considered "Negroid", since they didn't possess those phenotype features. Finally most ancient Egyptians cannot be considered tropical, since they show adaptation in pigmentation and cranial form to more temperate subtropical latitude.
There is no argument to "lose" - the hard data is what it is. Its certain notions
that fail repeatedly- like the dubious "color apartheid" zones. And brown skin is BUILT-IN
from African people whether via deep rooted genetics, or climate factors. People
who are "black" - whether "black" be conceived in social construct terms, or in
terms of scientific studies in Africa, have the highest within-group skin color
diversity. "Blackness", Negroid" "African"- whatever the terminology- makes
little difference. Such people have that high diversity, from light brown to jet black.
African also have the highest phenotypic diversity as credible scholars cited already
show. And the adaptations in place show tropical adaptations which are slow to change,
and the routine variation that occurs with differing diet, climate AND built-in
diversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- And you are debunking yourself with your own "race mix" notion.
The study in question compared limb proportions and ancient Egyptians cluster
with African Americans. You say it is because the African Americans
are admixed with whites. But if whiteness was the key, as you claim,
the Egyptians should have clustered with whites, not blacks. But
this is not the case at all. In fact, using your own whiteness-key model,
it is not "the white side" that is causing the cluster, but the fact that the
Egyptians are black- that is why they cluster with the African Americans.
Using your own whiteness-key model- the data more indicates that it is
"the black side" that is the controlling factor. Using your model on this
dimension, actually is more supportive of that alternative, and undermines
your argument.
Only limbs. Not in cephalic index or pigmentation.
Wrong again. As already demonstrated limb data proves you wrong,
as well as hard skin color data showing Africans have the highest
levels of within population diversity We have already dealt with the
brachycephalic issue, and as credible scholars show head shape can
vary very quickly die to temperature, or better resources such as diet.
On top of all that is built-in African diversity.
Let 's recap how your brachycephalic thing was debunked earlier 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 in place in various parts of Africa, including 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 highly plastic and children of the
same "race" without any admixture show skull changes as quickly as
within one generation. 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 reource
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.