|
|
Post by truthcentric on Apr 5, 2010 22:58:00 GMT -5
Many people like to use populations from the Horn of Africa as models for what the ancient Egyptians would have looked like. While Horners are useful for debunking the notion that black Africans can't have "Caucasoid" features, I doubt all ancient Egyptians really resembled them. Consider that the Egyptians were just downriver of the Nubians, who had a Sudanic appearance as shown here:  Physical anthropological studies have shown that these people were closely related to the Egyptians, which makes me wonder, could there have been a significant numbers of Egyptians who had a Sudanic look? Of course the Horner appearance was certainly common too, but perhaps it wasn't the only appearance in ancient Egypt. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Apr 17, 2010 21:35:51 GMT -5
I doubt it, the Egyptians were of a tri-lateral descent.
The Central Sudan, Central Sahara (i.e. West African), and East African Highlands and Sahel provided the mass majority of peoples to have latter populated and build onto Egypt.
Therefore the Egyptians would have been very diverse physically, ranging from peoples who resembled todays Nigerians to others who looked like your streotypical Eritrean.
BTW, lets stop streotyping Africans physically; diversity isn't limited to geographic regions, but is more on an individual basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Apr 22, 2010 9:49:45 GMT -5
truthcentric - You should ask yourself do all "horners" look "horner" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 22, 2010 11:04:50 GMT -5
Better yet, what is a "Sudanic appearance" another made-up phenotype?
|
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Apr 24, 2010 5:21:42 GMT -5
truthcentric - You should ask yourself do all "horners" look "horner" ? As silly as this question sounds with an air of contradiction, beyoku has a valid point. By 'Horners' I take it you mean East Africans of a certain type, that is with fine features like thin lips, narrow nose, etc. But even in the Horn of Africa itself both in Ethiopia and Eritrea there is variation with peoples there that look typical 'Sudanic' if you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Apr 24, 2010 17:18:45 GMT -5
Didn't know where else to put this, so I'm posting it here. Its an answer to Mathilda on the article by Joan Fletcher on Ancient Egyptian wigs and hair. Someone used the term negro to describe the Egyptians and Mathilda pulled out her studies clustering Nubians with "Caucasians". Both ideas I find false and inherantly based in a Eurocentice world view: Very interesting article. I cant help but thinking that there is truely nothing new under the sun. To Nefer and Mathilda though I'd like to say that trying to categorize people into groups such as negroid caucasoid etc is outdated and arbitrary. Real population groups do not fit neatly into little boxes. Another thing to consider is the assumtion that two people exhibiting differeing "racial characteristics" must be exclucive of each other,unrelated. This is not the case in real life. Certainly not in Egypt then and certainly not now. There always has been a range of skin colors, hair textures and bone structures all across Africa. The tendency to group certain peoples in Africa as caucasians is based on outdated assuptions that Africans were inherantly and fundamentally different from non Africans ESPECIALLY Europeans. While it is true that there has been gene flow into Africa, this alone does not explain the occurance of certain features found there. While it may be true that some East Africans have a degree of Asian input, this does not change the fact that these people are fundamentally still Africans. A Nubian or even the average Egyptian, certainly Upper Egyptian, would look very out of place in a crowd in Beiruit or Teheran and no one would ever confuse a Somali for a Turk. With regards to hair form, the ancient Egyptians, like there modern descendants showed a range of textures from straight to kinky. In fact the same chemical relaxers used by AfroAmericans and other people of African descent to straighten the hair is readily sold in every drug store all across Egypt today, particularly Dark and Lovely. The tendency of scholars to pointedly address these fact instead of skirting around them is what has left the door open for all sorts of wild alternative theories and assertations. Another problem is misleading language. When refering to the wigs on didplay in the Cairo Museum Joan calls them "curly". The correct description of those wigs is AFROS. The hair in question is kinky, not curly as anyone can see by looking at this video I took last summer of the wigs in question: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRlQEmumk5sI just wish for once that academics would do something to contribute to the process of moving us away from archaic theories of race, especially what WE think certain populations should look like based on our own ignorance and cultural biases instead of reinfircing them. |
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 25, 2010 0:15:20 GMT -5
^^ Good post Truthteacher2007, and welcome to the board my friend. In fact I think it should not be in this thread at all, as it is worthy of a discussion of it's own. I would highly suggest creating a new thread on the topic, and I will send you a PM on how to youtube videos into your posts.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by jayjay28 on May 1, 2010 10:53:13 GMT -5
I doubt it, the Egyptians were of a tri-lateral descent. The Central Sudan, Central Sahara (i.e. West African), and East African Highlands and Sahel provided the mass majority of peoples to have latter populated and build onto Egypt. Therefore the Egyptians would have been very diverse physically, ranging from peoples who resembled todays Nigerians to others who looked like your streotypical Eritrean. Despite them being of tri-lateral descent, what is the reason as to why the Land of Punt was only traced to South Eastern Sudan / Eritrea and not to other regions around the continent? Surely, being of tri-lateral descent they wouldn't have confined their Ancestral heritage, Gods and trade to a locality. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 1, 2010 14:04:43 GMT -5
I doubt it, the Egyptians were of a tri-lateral descent. The Central Sudan, Central Sahara (i.e. West African), and East African Highlands and Sahel provided the mass majority of peoples to have latter populated and build onto Egypt. Therefore the Egyptians would have been very diverse physically, ranging from peoples who resembled todays Nigerians to others who looked like your streotypical Eritrean. Despite them being of tri-lateral descent, what is the reason as to why the Land of Punt was only traced to South Eastern Sudan / Eritrea and not to other regions around the continent? Surely, being of tri-lateral descent they wouldn't have confined their Ancestral heritage, Gods and trade to a locality. Being that the three populations, Central Saharans (West Africans), Central Sudanics, and Northeast Africans, would have had merged into one general population during earlier pre-historic times... it's very unlikely that they would have had the knowledge to specifcally trace their ancestral origins. When they first came into contact with the people of Punt, they would have had saw strong bio-cultural similarities. Seeing that the Ancient Egyptians were an ancient population, them linking themselves to a single population should not be a surprise. Also, it's well documented that the Ancient Egyptians held other regions of the continent in similar regard, for example the Mountains of the Moon in Southern Sudan/Uganda. The Ancient Egyptians were not aware of their specific origins, in regard to them being a "mixed" African population with origins in three pre-historic African populations. |
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jun 5, 2010 10:46:59 GMT -5
I doubt it, the Egyptians were of a tri-lateral descent. The Central Sudan, Central Sahara (i.e. West African), and East African Highlands and Sahel provided the mass majority of peoples to have latter populated and build onto Egypt. Therefore the Egyptians would have been very diverse physically, ranging from peoples who resembled todays Nigerians to others who looked like your streotypical Eritrean. BTW, lets stop streotyping Africans physically; diversity isn't limited to geographic regions, but is more on an individual basis. Indeed. I think "Truth" is running a similar thread multiple times under different labels on EgyptSearch under the name Osirion. You straightened him out there a few times I notice. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Jun 6, 2010 18:57:32 GMT -5
I doubt it, the Egyptians were of a tri-lateral descent. The Central Sudan, Central Sahara (i.e. West African), and East African Highlands and Sahel provided the mass majority of peoples to have latter populated and build onto Egypt. Therefore the Egyptians would have been very diverse physically, ranging from peoples who resembled todays Nigerians to others who looked like your streotypical Eritrean. BTW, lets stop streotyping Africans physically; diversity isn't limited to geographic regions, but is more on an individual basis. Indeed. I think "Truth" is running a similar thread multiple times under different labels on EgyptSearch under the name Osirion. You straightened him out there a few times I notice. I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that. It offends me to see individuals coming back with the same nonsense and questions, even after being explained to on previous threads. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jun 8, 2010 13:28:07 GMT -5
From what I've been able to gather the dynastic Egyptians supposed
their origins were from upriver as in the Shemsu Hor mythos.
Archaeology posits population influx to the lower Nile valley before
the pre-dynastic era was from the middle Nile valley, the Sahara,
and the southern Levant.
The route middle Nile valley peoples took is simple and evident, they
moved down along the river. Also obvious is the southern Levantines
coming to the eastern delta and not not moving much if any southward.
The Saharans offer more of a challenge.
Their movement could have been both into what is now Nubia then down
river and also directly into the western delta. The former movement may
not be distinguished from the middle Nile movement of people to the
authors of the Shemsu Hor mythos. The latter movement seems to have
founded their own delta settlements.
AE historians of the proto-dynastic times already have a united southern
Egypt going to war against the delta to bring it under central rule. Looks
like the proto-dynastics also took land from Ta Seti. The exact relationship
between Ta Seti and Ta Shemaw is uncertain. They both were using proto
dynastic political symbology.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Jun 8, 2010 14:24:18 GMT -5
From what I've been able to gather the dynastic Egyptians supposed their origins were from upriver as in the Shemsu Hor mythos. Archaeology posits population influx to the lower Nile valley before the pre-dynastic era was from the middle Nile valley, the Sahara, and the southern Levant. The route middle Nile valley peoples took is simple and evident, they moved down along the river. Also obvious is the southern Levantines coming to the eastern delta and not not moving much if any southward. The Saharans offer more of a challenge. Their movement could have been both into what is now Nubia then down river and also directly into the western delta. The former movement may not be distinguished from the middle Nile movement of people to the authors of the Shemsu Hor mythos. The latter movement seems to have founded their own delta settlements. AE historians of the proto-dynastic times already have a united southern Egypt going to war against the delta to bring it under central rule. Looks like the proto-dynastics also took land from Ta Seti. The exact relationship between Ta Seti and Ta Shemaw is uncertain. They both were using proto dynastic political symbology. I'm not aware of any migrations from the Levant into the Lower Egyptian Delta, from my understandings Lower Egyptians were just as African as their southerly counterparts, the Upper Egyptians and "Nubians". Lower Egyptians were biologically and culturally related to other Africans, even prier to the Unification of Egypt. Northern Egypt shows more physical variation than the south, but not necessarily as part of any significant 'race' mix, but local, built-in variation. They were closer to southerners than any other peoples. In comparisons with "Middle Eastern" populations of the same ancient period, the Egyptians link more closely with other Africans than the Middle Easterners. Africans vary in how they look because they have the highest built-in molecular diversity to begin with. QUOTE(s): "..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60) "Individuals from different geographical regions frequently plotted near each other, revealing aspects of variation at the level of individuals that is obscured by concentrating on the most distinctive facial traits once used to construct ''types.''The high level of African interindividual variation in craniometric pattern is reminiscent of the great level of molecular diversity found in Africa." (S.O.Y Keita. Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: A comparative study using principal component analysis. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 16:679-689, 2004.) Quote on northern Egypt analysis- the Qarunian (Faiyum) remains (c. 7000 BC) "The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type." (Beatrix Midant-Reynes, Ian Shaw (2000). The Prehistory of Egypt. Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82) "Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Kebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." (Keita 1993) The Lower Egyptian culture was also in affiliation with populations to the south, i.e. Upper Egyptians and "Nubians". They did not have this same association with populations in the Levant. The closest thing being the adopting of some Levant Neolithic crops and animals by Lower Egyptians without any significant admixture between the two. |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jun 8, 2010 16:45:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it a migration in the sense of movement
Saharans evading the dryout quantified. Not even the
numbers downriver wandering MidNile peoples composed
but southern Levantines did indeed trickle into the east
side of the delta in pre-historic times -- support forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jun 10, 2010 12:20:59 GMT -5
The quote below supports influx from three general directions, the west, the south, and the east. It also suggests the west movement linked with the south movement, both unconnected to the east movement Archaeological evidence suggests that the ancient
Egyptian Nile Valley was peopled in large part by
immigrants from the Sahara and more southern
areas, who brought neolithic traits there. Some
movement from the Levant is also postulated.
Possibly the earliest indigenous African full
neolithic tradition (called Saharo-Sudanese or
Saharan) is found in the Western (Nubian) Desert
of Egypt, near the Sudanese border and is dated to
the seventh millinneum BC. Common core cultural
traits are noted in the Saharan neolithic and Nile
Valley predynastic sites, with some Near Eastern
influence in the north. Predynastic Egyptian culture
is most parsimoniously explained by a fusion of Saharan
and Nilotic.
Keita
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 83:35-48 (1990)
p 36c In the following quote we see the west movement further broken down into supra-Saharan and Saharan components. The south movement is shown to include both upper and middle Nile valley participants. The east movement is singularly from the northeast. The pre-historic peopling of Egypt includes folk from five sources. The peopling of what is now the Egyptian Nile Valley,
judging from archaeological and biological data, was
apparently the result of a complex interaction between - coastal northern Africans,
- “neolithic” Saharans,
- Nilotic hunters, and
- riverine proto-Nubians with
- some influence and migration from the Levant.
The major variability of early “Egyptians” is thus seen to
have been mainly established in the proto-predynastic
period by the settling of all of these peoples.
Keita
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 87:245-254 (1992)
p 251a Archaeology posits population influx to the lower Nile valley before the pre-dynastic era was from the middle Nile valley, the Sahara, and the southern Levant. The route middle Nile valley peoples took is simple and evident, they moved down along the river. Also obvious is the southern Levantines coming to the eastern delta and not not moving much if any southward. The Saharans offer more of a challenge. Their movement could have been both into what is now Nubia then down river and also directly into the western delta. The former movement may not be distinguished from the middle Nile movement of people to the authors of the Shemsu Hor mythos. The latter movement seems to have founded their own delta settlements. I'm not aware of any migrations from the Levant into the Lower Egyptian Delta, ... |
|
