|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Jul 6, 2010 14:40:01 GMT -5
Keita claims in the pre-dynastic two types of Egyptians were present. Southern Egyptians whom resemble Nubians and Badarians and Northern Egyptians who he describes as "Maghrebien". He then says only during the dynastic do you see "homogeneity" manifesting itself into the population.
My issue is he says that the Northern Egyptian population really didn't mix with foreigners yet they weren't quite like the Southern Egyptians. Immediately one must think that some sort of genetic transformation occurred, yet is there a distinct difference between Southern and Northern Egypt that would trigger such a genetic change?
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 6, 2010 16:07:41 GMT -5
Keita claims in the pre-dynastic two types of Egyptians were present. Southern Egyptians whom resemble Nubians and Badarians and Northern Egyptians who he describes as "Maghrebien". He then says only during the dynastic do you see "homogeneity" manifesting itself into the population. My issue is he says that the Northern Egyptian population really didn't mix with foreigners yet they weren't quite like the Southern Egyptians. Immediately one must think that some sort of genetic transformation occurred, yet is there a distinct difference between Southern and Northern Egypt that would trigger such a genetic change? Yes it is possible. It could be a situation where what you found in the north was a local regional variation. In other words, the people in that area experienced their own environmental physical adaptations. This would make sense because the north is climatically much different than the far south which is located in the tropical zone. I personally think that the difference in the north is due in part to local regional variation as well as some degree of mixing. I guess an example of this would be to look at the opposite end of Africa. The San people have developed their own set of physical characteristics which gives them very distinct physical features. They have light brown to yellow skin, very high cheek bones and slanted eyes. Now compare them with a group like the Zulus who migrated into South Africa from the tropical zone. Very different characteristics, yet they are both native Africans. So with Lower Egyptians, they probably had the same light brown to yellow skin tone as the San because they are both in Sub Tropical zones and like the San, they had their own set of physical characteristics as well. Over time, when the kingdoms wee united, there was stimulus for internal travel and you had northerners moving south, southerners moving north, thus creating a population that had a blend of southern and norther characteristics over time. Once again, just look to South Africa for a parallel. Nelson Mandela is not a San, yet he has the same high cheek bones and slanted eyes that they do. This is obviously because over time some Zulu groups intermarried with the San peoples that were already living in the area. Long winded answer, but I hope it was coherent |
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Jul 6, 2010 16:11:16 GMT -5
Thing is the San is older than the other branches of Africans from tropical climes like Zulus and Badarians. The Lower Egyptians, however, are likely a branch of tropical Africans that adapted to less intense heat and sunlight conditions. So things get a bit muddled in that type of translation.
The other issue is that Keita doesn't say there was a cline differentiating the two populaces. It was a very distinct difference both had. So what does that all mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 7, 2010 21:34:22 GMT -5
Thing is the San is older than the other branches of Africans from tropical climes like Zulus and Badarians. The Lower Egyptians, however, are likely a branch of tropical Africans that adapted to less intense heat and sunlight conditions. So things get a bit muddled in that type of translation. The other issue is that Keita doesn't say there was a cline differentiating the two populaces. It was a very distinct difference both had. So what does that all mean? I don't know, but I still don't see a conflict. The Nile Valley and Delta were settled by multiple populations. So all it means is that one group of Africans settled in the north and along the coast and another group of Africans settled in the south. Although I do believe that there must have also been some migration from the East, I don't think this would account for the entire northern population. |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 7, 2010 23:31:43 GMT -5
I just stumbled on a thread created by Homeylu which speaks to this phenominon perfectly. egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pav&action=display&thread=123We need to stop viewing the world through a Eurocentic filter and start living from the truth of our reality. Regardless of whether or not they shared the same features, they were still the same people. You can not determine how related a people are based on the criteria of physical characteristics alone. As Keita says, that alone will not give you the whole story, in fact it tells you the least. We need to view the Egyptians then and now according to the reality of how they saw/see themselves. A relationship which is not based on physical appearances but the reality of sharing a common homeland, familial ties and destiny. These are the things that tell you the real story. Looking at external characteristics only takes things out of context and causes confusion because its based on the false assumtion that two things that don't look the same can't be related. Well if that's the case I'm not related to my brother and all my cousins are from distinctly different families. |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 8, 2010 12:56:11 GMT -5
Can you post the actual quotes from Keita asserting the below? Thanks. Keita claims in the pre-dynastic two types of Egyptians were present. Southern Egyptians whom resemble Nubians and Badarians and Northern Egyptians who he describes as "Maghrebien". He then says only during the dynastic do you see "homogeneity" manifesting itself into the population. ... Keita doesn't say there was a cline differentiating the two populaces. It was a very distinct difference both had. |
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Jul 8, 2010 13:27:16 GMT -5
When Lower and Upper Egypt were unified c. 3150 BC, the distinction began to blur, resulting in a more "homogeneous" population in Egypt, though the distinction remains true to some degree to this day.[49][50][51] Some biological anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita believe the range of variability to be primarily indigenous and not necessarily the result of significant intermingling of widely divergent peoples.[52] Keita describes the northern and southern patterns of the early predynastic period as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant" (overlapping with Nubia/Kush) respectively. He shows that a progressive change in Upper Egypt toward the northern Egyptian pattern takes place through the predynastic period. The southern pattern continues to predominate in Abydos, Upper Egypt by the First Dynasty, but "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity."[53]
You know what that's my bad. It wasn't distinct Keita said it was quite progressive meaning there was great diversity even there at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 8, 2010 14:31:18 GMT -5
Where is that quote from? You must give the source
when posting quotes so all can go and read it in the
original. Anyway, it doesn't look like a quote from
Keita but somebody referencing him among others.
To know what Keita says in context one must read
reports/articles actually authored by Keita himself.
Taking shortcuts will arrive at misinterpretation.
|
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Jul 8, 2010 14:46:17 GMT -5
It's wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 8, 2010 21:32:55 GMT -5
The quote looks to be from Keita's "Crania from North Africa" studies from the early 1990s.But note Keita says the variation is primarily indigenous not any outside mix from wildly divergent populations or any mass influx ala the "Hamitic Hypothesis." Small scale movement from the Levant or Medit such as traders, travelers, herders etc could certainly have a minor influence, but the variation is homegrown. Keita says that because Africa itself has massive BUILT-IN INDIGENOUS VARIATION. Narrow noses/broad noses, dark skin/light brown skin, nappy hair/loose curls, Africa has it all. Narrows noses found on the continent for example do not automatically translate into mass European" or "Middle Eastern" influx. The key is to use a balanced package of analysis as Keita hisself recommends, not rely on just one- cranial, limb proportion, DNA etc. So when we use a balanced package and multiple lines of evidence, what do we get? 1-- Africa has the highest phenotypic diversity, including cranial. so narrows noses do not mean "European". "Estimates of genetic diversity in major geographic regions are frequently made by pooling all individuals into regional aggregates. This method can potentially bias results if there are differences in population substructure within regions, since increased variation among local populations could inflate regional diversity. A preferred method of estimating regional diversity is to compute the mean diversity within local populations. Both methods are applied to a global sample of craniometric data consisting of 57 measurements taken on 1734 crania from 18 local populations in six geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, East Asia, Australasia, Polynesia, and the Americas. Each region is represented by three local populations. Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies."(Relethford, John "Global Analysis of Regional Differences in Craniometric Diversity and Population Substructure". Human Biology - Volume 73, Number 5, October 2001, pp. 629-636) 2-- The closest relations to Egyptians are other Egyptians, followed by Nubians.   Gizeh (north) and Naqada (SOuth) link together first, followed by Nubia. 3-- When we look at limb proportions, which are more stable than cranial features, northern Egyptians cluster with other Egyptians and with tropical peoples like Black Americans. Note the use of northern samples below for comparison, both with US Blacks and with ancient Palestinians. If the north was 'European" or "Mediterranean" such clustering would not take place. But the pattern is the same as with crania- Egyptians to Egyptians first, then Nubians, and finally limb proportions cluster with other tropicals, even tropicals as distant as Black Americans.  4-- DNA data shows most YDNA in Egypt clusters with African groups, evenin the North.  Thus multiple evidence lines - cranial, limb, DNA - show variation, but the primary clustering is with tropically adapted Africans. |
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Jul 8, 2010 22:53:54 GMT -5
zarahan what are the wildly divergent populations
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 9, 2010 10:44:59 GMT -5
Wildly divergent would be like the mythical "Mediterranean" "Asiatic" or "Nordic" hordes that scholars a few decades ago held swept down into the Nile valley to populate it, with "tropical" elements conveniently coming several millennia later in the New Kingdom, like walk-on extras in a bad movie... As late as 1990 the Encyc Britannica was talking about the 'Armenoid' character of the Nile Valley inhabitants, never bothering to specify exactly what or who these mysterious 'Armenoids" were or where they came from- Armenia perhaps?
A lot of the old time scholars did good work, and deserve credit, such as Petrie, but stereotypial racial lenses of their times marred their methods and conclusions- hence samples on the ground that fit their own "negroid" definitions were routinely reclassified as 'Mediterranean" or excluded altogether from final reports. One scholar excluded from her report several of what she called "clear negro" samples as "foreign" to an excavation site even though that is where they were found. They were where they were not "supposed" to be. Keita however also notes that there were some dissenters back in the day from the prevailing orthodoxy that gave a more balanced account of what was found, and did not distort or dismiss the indigenous African character of samples found. See his Crania papers.
|
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Jul 9, 2010 13:12:14 GMT -5
Wildly divergent would be like the mythical "Mediterranean" "Asiatic" or "Nordic" hordes that scholars a few decades ago held swept down into the Nile valley to populate it, with "tropical" elements conveniently coming several millennia later in the New Kingdom, like walk-on extras in a bad movie... As late as 1990 the Encyc Britannica was talking about the 'Armenoid' character of the Nile Valley inhabitants, never bothering to specify exactly what or who these mysterious 'Armenoids" were or where they came from- Armenia perhaps? A lot of the old time scholars did good work, and deserve credit, such as Petrie, but stereotypial racial lenses of their times marred their methods and conclusions- hence samples on the ground that fit their own "negroid" definitions were routinely reclassifie people d as 'Mediterranean" or excluded altogether from final reports. One scholar excluded from her report several of what she called "clear negro" samples as "foreign" to an excavation site even though that is where they were found. They were where they were not "supposed" to be. Keita however also notes that there were some dissenters back in the day from the prevailing orthodoxy that gave a more balanced account of what was found, and did not distort or dismiss the indigenous African character of samples found. See his Crania papers. You said no "outside mix" What does that mean? Outside Africa? Was the Middle East and the Mediterranean people negroid? Is then maybe this inside and outside thing is irrelevant |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 9, 2010 13:55:52 GMT -5
MODERATOR MESSAGE
Let's keep this thread on-topic.
Middle East or Mediterranean negroids
needs a thread of its own in another folder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 9, 2010 13:57:37 GMT -5
The supplied quote wasn't from Keita alone. It was a Wiki pastiche of 3 different authors. The quote looks to be from Keita's "Crania from North Africa" studies from the early 1990s. |
|
