|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 9, 2010 14:50:55 GMT -5
I notice that when this thread started it was about pre-dynastic Egyptian population variation with a delta type and a valley type. The delta type affinities were akin to Maghrebis while the valley type affinities were akin to Sudanis. During the dynastic it was said the two basic types began to tend toward homogeneity. Then questions were brought up about genetic transformation.
If my synopsis of EgyptianPlanet's opening post is correct (s)he nowhere mentions any non-African populations. His/her discourse in focus is purely positive and pro-active about an Egyptian issue of indigenous African physical variation.
The thread continued in a positive pro-active vein introducing comparisons with Africans at the other end of the continent.
So why in reactionary fashion bring up old discredited material on the peopling of Egypt? Nobody was thinking about it and it was out of sight out of mind. Seems like it would indeed rest in peace after its death unless resurrected time and again to remind us of what we already know about it, that it lacks merit.
Just think. Some surfer who previously had no idea of all that poppycock and was learning about delta and valley physical types suddenly gets imbued with negative information and now it enters their mindset.
Tired a cliche as it is isn't it best to let sleeping dogs lie in their kennel instead of waking them and transferring them to other kennels?
In this thread I'd like to lread about Lower and Upper Egyptians. I can get all that other stuff elsewhere if I want it. At least that's my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 9, 2010 15:05:05 GMT -5
I notice that when this thread started it was about pre-dynastic Egyptian population variation with a delta type and a valley type. The delta type affinities were akin to Maghrebis while the valley type affinities were akin to Sudanis. During the dynastic it was said the two basic types began to tend toward homogeneity. Then questions were brought up about genetic transformation. If my synopsis of EgyptianPlanet's opening post is correct (s)he nowhere mentions any non-African populations. His/her discourse in focus is purely positive and pro-active about an Egyptian issue of indigenous African physical variation. The thread continued in a positive pro-active vein introducing comparisons with Africans at the other end of the continent. So why in reactionary fashion bring up old discredited material on the peopling of Egypt? Nobody was thinking about it and it was out of sight out of mind. Seems like it would indeed rest in peace after its death unless resurrected time and again to remind us of what we already know about it, that it lacks merit. Just think. Some surfer who previously had no idea of all that poppycock and was learning about delta and valley physical types suddenly gets imbued with negative information and now it enters their mindset. Tired a cliche as it is isn't it best to let sleeping dogs lie in their kennel instead of waking them and transferring them to other kennels? In this thread I'd like to lread about Lower and Upper Egyptians. I can get all that other stuff elsewhere if I want it. At least that's my opinion anyway. Would you happen to have any photos as an example of the Maghrebi type refered to here? The thing is that even in North Africa, I see several different phenotypes, so I'm really in the dark as to which one represents the Maghrebi type. Have there ever been facial reconstructions done on any of these skulls?
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Jul 9, 2010 15:19:03 GMT -5
al~Takruri, you spoke of Maghrebis That includes Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania and the the Western Sahara. Libya is the only one that borders Egypt. None of the countries is indigenous to Egypt. Egypt is indigenous to Egypt. You spoke of Sudan. That's a country to the South of Egypt. Kushites and Libyans were considered not indigenous to Kemet by the Kemites. So you include a country like Algeria which is a a whole country apart from Egypt meanwhile the Middle East and Mediterraneans were countries closer to Egypt. If the people in those countries to the North of Egypt were black in ancient times why you have a problem? These were all neighboring countries that the Kemites made paintings of the peoples from them. So would it be more relevant to talk about people in places like Zaire or Tanzania, places far from Egypt that the Kemites never talked about just because they are in the Euro construct called "Africa" as if the Suez existed back then? Didn't Dr. Clarke say there is no Middle East it's "upper Africa" ?
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Jul 9, 2010 15:27:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 9, 2010 15:32:20 GMT -5
I suggest reading these two Keita reports so that all will have the proper context in both space (northern continental Africa) and time (pre dynastic and 1st dynasty). All the rest is irrelevant to the subject header of this thread and should be taken up elsewhere in my opinion. - Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990)
- Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa:
An Analysis of Crania from First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs using Multiple Discriminant Functions American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87: 245-254 (1992)
al~Takruri, you spoke of Maghrebis That includes Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania and the the Western Sahara. Libya is the only one that borders Egypt. None of the countries is indigenous to Egypt. Egypt is indigenous to Egypt. You spoke of Sudan. That's a country to the South of Egypt. Kushites and Libyans were considered not indigenous to Kemet by the Kemites.
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Jul 9, 2010 15:37:42 GMT -5
applying "African" and "non-African" is a modern political construct. Afro-Asia is all one land mass. Obviously countries most related to a given country are those surrounding it not some countries many more thousands of miles away. Those countries are more "outside", continent regardless. You have Kemet, Libu, Kush, Caanan etc. The Kemites had no concept for "Africa"
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 9, 2010 15:41:16 GMT -5
Please read Keita's reports for his description of his two broad general categories. Another very useful report in this regard is - Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari, Aboriginals or “European” Agro-Nostratic Immigrants?
Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191–208 (2005)
I notice that when this thread started it was about pre-dynastic Egyptian population variation with a delta type and a valley type. The delta type affinities were akin to Maghrebis while the valley type affinities were akin to Sudanis. Would you happen to have any photos as an example of the Maghrebi type refered to here? The thing is that even in North Africa, I see several different phenotypes, so I'm really in the dark as to which one represents the Maghrebi type. Have there ever been facial reconstructions done on any of these skulls?
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 9, 2010 17:02:28 GMT -5
- Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa
Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid- Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.
- Further studies of crania from ancient Northern Africa:
An analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs, using multiple discriminant functions
An analysis of First Dynasty crania from Abydos was undertaken using multiple discriminant functions. The results demonstrate greater affinity with Upper Nile Valley patterns, but also suggest change from earlier craniometric trends. Gene flow and movement of northern officials to the important southern city may explain the findings.
I notice that when this thread started it was about pre-dynastic Egyptian population variation with a delta type and a valley type. The delta type affinities were akin to Maghrebis while the valley type affinities were akin to Sudanis. During the dynastic it was said the two basic types began to tend toward homogeneity. Then questions were brought up about genetic transformation. If my synopsis of EgyptianPlanet's opening post is correct ...
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 9, 2010 17:29:26 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 Outside would mean outside Africa. See Keita's papers referenced, where he talks about "Mediterraneans" and see other similar threads like: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=egyto&action=display&thread=15Getting back to Upper and Lower Egypt, would you say Egyptians from both areas were not indigenous Africans? Where do you think Upper and Lower Egyptians came from initially? Where do the dynasties originate?
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Jul 10, 2010 20:26:19 GMT -5
How can we say which people originated where, zarahan? Didn't we all originate in East Africa from the San? So when we say where we "originated" from it doesn't matter since we all originated from the same source. Take the Greeks, for example. Are you going to say they originated from Central Asia or the Middle East? You can't, since those in the Middle East originated in East Africa as with those from Central Asia.
Saying the Upper and Lower Egyptians aren't native Africans can simply be dismissed. Yet I have trouble when you used the "black" card as if that's the definition of African, I also don't like when you use the term "negro." Such terms, as per Keita, are archaic and should be abolished. The point is that Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians have different crania and body types that appear to be similar but not identical. The Upper Egyptian skull tends to be elongated whereas the Lower Egyptian skull is more triangulated.
Also we can't forget that Lower Egypt lies on the Mediterranean. There is no people who are called, "Mediterranean." However those that lived along the Mediterranean could have adapted to the climes like Lower Egyptians and Berbers who hugged the coast. This could have led to variance in local populations adapting to the climate no different than how West Africans adapted to the tropical air by adapting wider noses while East Africans in drier climes developed a nose more aquiline.
I just get the feeling you're so keen on labeling Egyptians as "black" and "negro" that when we discuss something deviant, not necessarily attributed to Africa, although it is, you tend to jump down its throat and claim it's dismissing the Africanity of the issue. It's not, ffs.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Jul 11, 2010 2:28:25 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? Though he states predynastic northern may have had a phenotype more similar to Europeans, Keita himelf has never studies predynastic Northern Egyptian crania himself.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 11, 2010 11:10:02 GMT -5
Are you saying he never directly examined the crania laid out in the materials and methods sections of his reports? ... Keita himself has never studied predynastic Northern Egyptian crania ...
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 11, 2010 15:10:52 GMT -5
- Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa
Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid- Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.
- Further studies of crania from ancient Northern Africa:
An analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs, using multiple discriminant functions
An analysis of First Dynasty crania from Abydos was undertaken using multiple discriminant functions. The results demonstrate greater affinity with Upper Nile Valley patterns, but also suggest change from earlier craniometric trends. Gene flow and movement of northern officials to the important southern city may explain the findings.
I notice that when this thread started it was about pre-dynastic Egyptian population variation with a delta type and a valley type. The delta type affinities were akin to Maghrebis while the valley type affinities were akin to Sudanis. During the dynastic it was said the two basic types began to tend toward homogeneity. Then questions were brought up about genetic transformation. If my synopsis of EgyptianPlanet's opening post is correct ... Here's a question tht just came to me. According to his cranial findings, there were differences between pre dynastic northerners and southerners. However, what of the limb ratios? Would it be accurate to say that although they had differing cranifacial measurements, both groups possessed tropical body plans?
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Jul 12, 2010 0:32:00 GMT -5
Here's a question that just came to me. According to his cranial findings, there were differences between pre dynastic northerners and southerners. However, what of the limb ratios? Would it be accurate to say that although they had differing cranifacial measurements, both groups possessed tropical body plans? Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski * Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK Abstract Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 12, 2010 0:53:23 GMT -5
Here's a question that just came to me. According to his cranial findings, there were differences between pre dynastic northerners and southerners. However, what of the limb ratios? Would it be accurate to say that although they had differing cranifacial measurements, both groups possessed tropical body plans? Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski * Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK Abstract Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. So if I'm reading this correctly, it means that both groups had tropical limb ratios regardless of the fact that there were two craniofacial measurements in Upper and Lower Egypt. Is there anyone who would disagree with this perspective? If so please explain why.
|
|