1-Basic Database of Nile Valley Studies

[zarahan]

Credible peer-review scientists (Gourdine, Keita, Anselin) critique Abusir-El Meleq ancient DNA study for several flaws: (a) limited (3 samples) and skewed sampling excluding southern Egypt and other Africans like Nubians, (b) skewed on normal, full presentation of data and alternative explanations (such as using only Late Period samples excluding 3,000 years of prior Egyptian history, and (c) stereotypical conceptions of ‘Africans’ as only peoples ‘south’ of the Sahara.



Study implied that ancient Egyptians came from the Asia, and that "sub-Saharan" Africans are recent due to the Islamic slave trades:
QUOTES: “Schuenemann et al.1 seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient DNA study of later period remains from northern Egypt, that the ‘ancient Egyptians’ (AE) as an entity came from Asia (the Near East, NE), and that modern Egyptians “received additional sub-Saharan African (SSA) admixtures in recent times” after the latest period of the pharaonic era due to the “trans-Saharan slave trade and Islamic expansion..” There are alternative interpretations of the results but which were not presented as is traditionally done, with the exception of the admission that results from southern Egyptians may have been different. The alternative interpretations involve three major considerations: 1) sampling and methodology, 2) historiography and 3) definitions as they relate to populations, origins and evolution.”Tiny sample sizes: “The whole genome sample size is too small (n=3) to accurately permit a discussion of all Egyptian population history from north to south.”

Other DNA data show substantial African affinity: “Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”

Arbitrary definition of some DNA haplogroups as ‘Asian’ problematic: “Conceptually what genetic markers are considered to be “African” or “Asian” .. For example, the E1b1b1 (M35/78) lineage found in one Abusir el-Meleq sample is found not only in northern Africa, but is also well represented in eastern Africa7 and perhaps was taken to Europe across the Mediterranean before the Holocene (Trombetta, personal communication). E lineages are found in high frequency (>70%) among living Egyptians in Adaima9. The authors define all mitochondrial M1 haplogroups as “Asian” which is problematic. M1 has been postulated to have emerged in Africa10, and there is no convincing evidence supporting an M1 ancestor in Asia: many M1 daughter haplogroups (M1a) are clearly African in origin and history10. The M1a1, M1a2a, M1a1i, M1a1e variants found in the Abusir el-Meleq samples1 predate Islam and are abundant in SSA groups10, particularly in East Africa.”

So called “sub-Saharan” patterns in place from the beginning in Egypt and are not merely the product of the ‘slave trade.’ “Furthermore, SSA groups indicated to have contributed to modern Egypt do not match the Muslim trade routes that have been well documented11 as SSA groups from the great lakes and southern African regions were largely absent in the internal trading routes that went north to Egypt. It is important to note that “SSA” influence may not be due to a slave trade, an overdone explanation; the green Sahara is to be considered as Egypt is actually in the eastern Sahara. SSA affinities of modern Egyptians from Abusir El-Meleq might be attributed to ancient early settlers as there is a notable frequency of the “Bushmen canine”- deemed a SSA trait in Predynastic samples dating to 4,000 BC9 from Adaima, Upper Egypt. Haplogroup L0f, usually associated with southern Africans, is present in living Egyptians in Adaima9 and could represent the product of an ancient “ghost population” from the Green Sahara that contributed widely. Distributions and admixtures in the African past may not match current “SSA” groups12.”

Definition of ‘African’ stereotypical, even as strangely, authors exclude many actual African samples near Egypt from the data
“Schuenemann et al.1 seem to implicitly suggest that only SSA equals Africa and that there are no interconnections between the various regions of Africa not rooted in the slave trade, a favorite trope. It has to be noted too that that in the Islamic armies that entered Egypt that there were a notable number of eastern Africans. It is not clear why there is an emphasis on ‘sub-Saharan’ when no Saharan or supra-Saharan population samples--empirical or modelled are considered; furthermore, there is no one way to be “sub-Saharan.” In this study northern tropical Africans, such as lower and upper Nubians and adjacent southern Egyptians and Saharans were not included as comparison groups, as noted by the authors themselves.”

FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt





^^Peer review critique above points out several flaws in Abusir study.. Note the detailed
historical and anthropological data excluded above...
Test of full peer critique: osf.io/ecwf3/

[zarahan]

Distinctive "Bushman canine" dental feature, found most frequently in sub-Saharan Africa, also appears among Ancient Egyptians. Dental data confirmed by DNA analysis showing Haplogroup L0f, a southern African marker, also appearing in Egyptians. Quote:

"It is important to note that “SSA” influence may not be due to a slave trade, an overdone explanation; the green Sahara is to be considered as Egypt is actually in the eastern Sahara. SSA affinities of modern Egyptians from Abusir El-Meleq might be attributed to ancient early settlers as there is a notable frequency of the “Bushmen canine”- deemed a SSA trait in Predynastic samples dating to 4,000 BC9 from Adaima, Upper Egypt. Haplogroup L0f, usually associated with southern Africans, is present in living Egyptians in Adaima and could represent the product of an ancient “ghost population” from the Green Sahara that contributed widely. " [Crubézy, E. Le peuplement de la vallée du Nil. Archéo-Nil 20, 25-42 (2010).]
--FROM: Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion Gourdine1, Keita, Gourdine and Anselin. 2017


'Bushman canine' feature primarily African, and oft falsely reported in other populations. Quote:

The mesial lingual ridge is an almost invariant feature of the upper canines while tuberculum dentale is polymorphic. In some cases, a large tuberculum dentate coalesces with the mesial lingual ridge to form what Morris (1975) calls the Bushman canine. This fact is most evident when one antimere exhibits the ‘Bushmen canine’ while the other exhibits a large free-standing tuberculum projection. This trait is most common in African populations, especially the Bushmen, but it has been observed in populations from other geographic areas, in some cases falsely so (Irish and Morris, 1996).

-- Scott and Turner. 2000. The Anthropology of Modern Human Teeth: Dental Morphology and Its Variation.. p31-33




Africans have the highest ancestral dental diversity. Distinctive traits by SOME Africans are part of an INDIGENOUS range not stereotypical
"Previous research by the first author revealed that, relative to other modern peoples, sub-Saharan Africans exhibit the highest frequencies of ancestral (or plesiomorphic) dental traits... The fact that sub-Saharan Africans express these apparently plesiomorphic characters, along with additional information on their affinity to other modern populations, evident intra-population heterogeneity, and a world-wide dental cline emanating from the sub-continent, provides further evidence that is consistent with an African origin model." (Irish JD, Guatelli-Steinberg D.(2003) Ancient teeth and modern human origins: an expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples. Hum Evol. 2003 Aug;45(2):113-44. )


African populations have a broad range of characteristics- the most diverse in the world. Distinctive dental traits in one place do not mean ALL Africans are "supposed" to have the same thing, at all times, in all places. Nor does the absence of a unique trait in one area make the people "non-African". Some Africans have the feature, others do not, but all categories are still Africans. With these caveats noted against stereotypical claims that "only" Africans with said feature are true" Africans, the Bushman Canine feature registers notable frequencies in Africa and appears in Egypt, which too, is in Africa.

"Because over one-third of Blacks manifest this condition, while it is rare in Whites and Asians, the presence of this feature supports an attribution of a skull to this ancestral group. The Bushman canine also is useful for attributing a skull to Black. In this trait, an additional cusp appears on the lingual side of the crown of the maxillary canine, making this tooth similar in configuration to a lower first premolar (Figure 7.1 lb). Because its frequency in Blacks is three times higher than other ancestral groups, the presence of this trait in the dentition of forensic remains generally implies Black ancestry."
--By Steven N. Byers. Introduction to Forensic Anthropology. p. 141

"This range of variation is compatible with those obtained by genetic, craniometric, and odontometric data. Subsaharan Africans show the largest intra-regional diversity among the groups compared.. Regardless of different population structures in each geographic region, the gradients of the diversity presented herein indicate that geographic distance from subsaharan Africa is a significant and primary determinant of nonmetric dental variation observed on the vast Eurasian, Australian, and New World regions .. the geographic distance from subsaharan Africa along likely colonization routes is one of the strongly supported predictors for not only genetic but also phenotypic diversity of modern human populations. The pattern of decrease in dental variation with distance from East Africa is more or less smooth and provides no suggestion for major discontinuities that could be interpreted as evidence for a second or multiple origin(s) of modern human populations. Therefore, the globally distributed populations can be explained by an expansion from subSaharan Africa."
--Tsunehiko Hanihara*. 2008. Morphological variation of major human populations based on nonmetric dental traits. AJPA 136:169–182

[zarahan]

.

Contrary to stereotypical constructs and double standards that try to pigeonhole Africans into a simplistic “types,” dental studies show that that Africans have the highest diversity, a diversity that decreases with distance from Africa. This is confirmed by DNA and cranial studies. Just as Africans vary in height, nose shape, etc, they also show dental variation, yet are still Africans.


"The patterns of inter- and intra-regional variation among 12 major geographical groups from around the world
were investigated based on 15 nonmetric dental traits.. This range of variation is compatible with those obtained
by genetic, craniometric, and odontometric data. Subsaharan Africans show the largest intra-regional diversity
among the groups compared. The degree of intra-regional variation shows, moreover, rough clinalities from
subsaharan Africa to peripheral regions. The relationship between regional variation and geographic distance
from subsaharan Africa supports serial bottlenecks and the founder effect of ancient populations originating
in Africa.. The present findings are in agreement with both the recent African model for the origin of
anatomically modern humans and the current scenario for human migration history suggested by genetic
analyses.."

"Regardless of different population structures in each geographic region, the gradients of the diversity presented
herein indicate that geographic distance from subsaharan Africa is a significant and primary determinant of
nonmetric dental variation observed on the vast Eurasian, Australian, and New World regions as shown in
Figure 2. It has often been predicted that genetic differentiation between populations increases essentially with
geographic distance (Relethford, 2004; Ramachandran et al., 2005). Moreover, the rapid expansion out of
Africa would imply a progressive loss of genetic diversity through a series of bottlenecks (Prugnolle et al., 2005;
Liu et al., 2006; Manica et al., 2007; Serre and Pa¨a¨bo, 2007).

If this is true, as seems likely, the geographic distance from subsaharan Africa along likely colonization routes is one of the strongly supported predictors for not only genetic but also phenotypic diversity of modern human populations. The pattern of decrease in dental variation with distance from East Africa is more or less smooth and provides no suggestion for major discontinuities that could be interpreted as evidence for a second or multiple origin(s) of modern human populations. Therefore, the globally distributed populations can be explained by an expansion from subsaharan Africa."
--Tsunehiko Hanihara*. 2008. Morphological variation of major human populations based on nonmetric dental traits. AJPA 136:169–182

[zarahan]

-

[zarahan]

Earliest version of alphabet, a forerunner, appears in Ancient Egypt per 2018 study
www.livescience.com/62580-earliest-alphabet-discovered.html



The earliest example of our alphabet — a possible mnemonic phrase that helped someone remember "ABCD" — has been discovered on a 3,400-year-old inscribed piece of limestone from ancient Egypt, a scholar believes.

Three of the words start with the ancient equivalent of B, C and D, creating what may be a mnemonic phrase.

Thomas Schneider, a professor of Egyptology and Near Eastern Studies at the University of British Columbia, reported the discovery in a paper published recently in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. This discovery "would be the first historical attestation of 'our' alphabet sequence," he told Live Science in an email.

Modern-day scholars sometimes call the early ancestor of our ABCD alphabet sequence the "abgad" sequence, because this phrase mentions some of the first letters of the early version of our alphabet. Until this discovery, the oldest example of this sequence had only dated back about 3,200 years, Schneider wrote in his paper. [Cracking Codes: 5 Ancient Languages Yet to Be Deciphered]

The alphabet that we use today is derived from that used by the Phoenicians, a civilization that flourished between roughly 3,500 and 2,300 years ago in the Eastern Mediterranean. They used what scholars call a Semitic language, a term that refers to a branch of languages that trace their origins to the Middle East, each sharing some similar words. The early forerunner to our alphabet was written in Semitic languages. Few texts that are written in Semitic languages date back 3,400 years or more, however.
Earliest ABCDs?

A team of archaeologists from the Cambridge Theban Tombs Project, led by Nigel Strudwick, discovered the inscribed piece of limestone in 1995 in a tomb that belonged to an Egyptian official named Sennefer, and recently Schneider studied and deciphered it. While the text is written in hieratic — a form of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing — "all [the] words appear to be of foreign linguistic origin" and are mostly Semitic, wrote Schneider in his paper.

One side of the limestone piece contains a series of Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols that represent the words "bibiya-ta" (a word that can mean "earth snail"), "garu" (a word that can mean "dove") and "da'at" (a word that can mean "kite"), Schneider wrote in his paper. More than 3,000 years ago, the "g" would have represented the sound that "c" does today, Schneider told Live Science. This means that the first letter of each of these words is the ancient equivalent of "BCD." [Photos: 5,000-Year-Old Hieroglyphs Discovered in Sinai Desert]

There are symbols in front of these three words that are harder to interpret, but they could spell out "elta'at" (a word that can mean "gecko" or "lizard"), Schneider wrote in his paper.

It's possible that all the signs together formed the phrase "and the lizard and the snail, and the dove and the kite …" wrote Schneider in the paper — a phrase that may have helped the person who wrote the text to remember the proper order of the ancient forerunner of today's alphabet.
Another alphabetic sequence

The other side of the inscribed piece of limestone also contains a series of Semitic words written in hieratic, Schneider said. They spell out the words "hahāna lāwī ḥelpat mayyin leqab." The first letters of the first four words in that series — the letters "hlhm" — represent the first few letters of another ancient alphabetic sequence, one that never became as popular as the ancient forerunner to our alphabet.

These words form a phrase that means, "to make pleasant the one who bends reed, water [according] to the Qab." The "qab" is a unit of measurement that equals about 1.2 liters, Schneider wrote. This phrase likely helped the person who wrote this inscription to remember the first few letters of this alphabetic sequence, Schneider said.

Ben Haring, a senior university lecturer in Egyptology at Leiden University, was the first to recognize the "hlhm" sequence on this limestone piece and published a paper on it in 2015 in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
Semitic alphabet practice?

Whoever wrote these inscriptions 3,400 years ago may have been trying to remember the start of both alphabetic sequences, Schneider said. Sennefer was an official who dealt with Egyptian foreign affairs and likely understood the Semitic languages that were used in the Eastern Mediterranean, Schneider said.

When Sennefer's tomb was being constructed, perhaps the scribes helping to build the tomb were trying to learn the languages, and one of them wrote these words down as a practice exercise, Schneider told Live Science.

Schneider's article was recently published, and it remains to be seen how scholars will react to his findings.

Haring, who identified the "hlhm" sequence, said that he welcomes Schneider's work, but is cautious about the idea that the other side of the limestone piece bears evidence of the ancient forerunner to our modern alphabet sequence. A major problem with research into this piece of limestone is the lack of texts written in Semitic dating back 3,400 years, Haring said. This means that when scholars analyze the words, they have to use Semitic texts from later periods to understand them, even though their meanings could have been different 3,400 years ago, Haring said.

When Haring published his "hlhm" finding in 2015, he published it as a suggestion — even he wasn’t convinced of his own discovery at the time. He said that since that time, his finding has received widespread acceptance among scholars. It remains to be seen if Schneider's finding will receive the same acceptance.

[zarahan]

Aubin holds that some Western historians have downplayed the Kushite role in the rescue
of Jerusalem, in order to minimize the Kushite profile in the region's
history at the time, and to make the Kushites appear as incompetents,
unable to influence contemporary battlefields.

Aubin defends his thesis ably against various critics below, pointing
out that The "Kushite Rescue" model (in full or partial versions) is not
something conjured by "liberals" in the 2oth century, but goes back
several centuries, backed by some of the world's leading Jewish and Western
intellectual figures of the time (even John Calvin earlier for example) This was not
necessarily a total consensus among a majority but there was substantial support.
Such support began to be seriously dismissed or downplayed starting with the era
of EUropean colonialist scramble in Africa in the late 19th century.
Aubin points out that a Kushite intervention is not incompatible with other
causes such as divine intervention, or epidemics, for the threat of a large
Kushite force maneuvering in the region- either to "mop up" after angelic intervention
or epidemic, or directly attack Assyrian armies would weigh heavily on Assyrian minds.
Either way, the Kushite threat would have to be taken seriously.

--------------------------------
Says AUbin- Riposte to critics:


In Rescue of Jerusalem, I try to determine why the Assyrian army, led by the
emperor Sennacherib, abandoned its invasion of Judah during the reign of Hezekiah,
an event treated in 2 Kgs 18-19, Isa 36-37 and 2 Chron 32. Each of these narratives
credits the angel of the Lord with forcing the invaders’ withdrawal as they were
threatening the kingdom’s capital; the event’s importance has prompted scholars
over the centuries to theorize on a more realistic cause for Jerusalem’s deliverance.
One of the principal theories is that an epidemic forced the Assyrians to retreat (I
refer to this as the “epidemic theory”); a second maintains the invaders departed to
attend to troubles elsewhere in their empire (the “troubles-elsewhere theory”). I
argue for another theory: that the Assyrians departed sometime after hearing a report
or rumor that a Kushite expeditionary force was approaching; 2 Kgs 19:9 and Isa 37:9
allude to this advance and say it was led by Tirhakah, a Kushite royal now more
commonly known as Taharqa...

Riposte to critics:

1. Misstating the starting premise

Point: Evans starts by describing my premise (which he will subsequently call unfounded). He says that I maintain that in the decades and centuries prior to the 1880s there was, in his words, “a scholarly consensus that the Cushites were instrumental in the deliverance of Jerusalem.” He does not see this consensus as 15 modest but, rather, as “fairly broad.” He uses the word “consensus” to describe my 16 view six times.

Response:
I never suggest a consensus. I state: “The point, then, should be made 17 emphatically. Prior to 20th century, those who stated that the Kushite Dynasty had played some sort of major role (whether supporting or leading) in turning back Sennacherib included some of the West’s leading figures in Christian and Jewish thought” (emphasis added). Note that this wording covers supporters of both the 18 Kushite-rescue theory and the hybrid Kushite-rescue theory. The word “consensus“ indicates majority opinion. “Some” does not mean “most.”


2. Wrongly disputing the supporting evidence

Criticism: Evans suggests I exaggerate pro-Kushite support in the pre-colonial era. He says that only three of the six individuals whom I name as supporters of the Kushite-rescue theory (as distinct from the hybrid version) deserve to be considered as such: 19 they are Constable, a 19th-century Anglican prebendary at Cork; Radak, a 12th-20 century rabbi from France, and Malbim, a 19th-century rabbi from eastern Europe. 21 Evans in effect eliminates three other scholars from my list: Heeren, Wilkinson and Lowth.

Response:
No basis exists for any of these eliminations. Let us consider each case.
• The German historian Heeren (1760-1842), knighted by England and named by France to its Legion of Honor, writes one sentence on Taharqa’s expedition: he says Taharqa “deterred” Sennacherib “from the invasion of Egypt, merely by the rumour of his advance against him.” I observe in the book that for 22 Heeren, the 25th Dynasty’s expedition was in effect “exclusively responsible for turning back Sennacherib.” Evans disagrees emphatically: “Heeren says 23 nothing of the sort.” Evans explains: “The turning back of Assyria envisioned by Heeren does not suggest that Cush turned Assyria back from conquering Judah, but rather merely from invading Egypt.”

Evans errs. He ignores the footnote that accompanies Heeren’s observation, In that footnote, the historian indicates that he bases his opinion on 2 Kings 19:9; this is the verse that states that Sennacherib, while in Judah, received the intelligence regarding Taharqa’s advance. Heeren’s footnote thus makes it plain that he sees the expedition as deterring Sennacherib from further action against Judah (as well as from an invasion of Egypt). 25 • Regarding Wilkinson (1797-1875), vice-president of the British Archaeological Association, Evans writes, “Aubin and Bellis both point out J.G. Wilkinson’s opinion (1878) that Tirhakah defeated ‘the numerous army of Sennacherib.’” 26 Yet, despite acknowledging this, Evans will later leave out Wilkinson from the shortened list of scholars whom he sees as true supporters of the Kushite-rescue theory. He gives no explanation for this omission. Wilkinson’s absence from Evans’ list is all the more curious because of the unequivocal nature of his view: in an another book (published in 1854), he writes that “Tirhaka… checked the advance of the Assyrians and, forcing Sennacherib to retire from Judaea, restored the influence of Egypt to Syria.” 27

• Lowth (1660-1732), an Anglican cleric and biblical commentator, backs the idea that the 25th-Dynasty army created a “diversion” for “Sennacherib’s forces, when they were ready to fall upon the Jews.” A diversion is a common military tactic, and it is among the plausible explanations for why the Assyrians might have retreated under Kushite pressure. This diversion is the only cause that the Briton gives for the invaders’ withdrawal, so he would appear to give the 25th Dynasty’s expedition full credit for the Assyrian setback. However, Evans says Lowth’s idea of a diversion would have only “contributed” to the Assyrian withdrawal, which presumably would make him a supporter of the 29 hybrid Kushite-rescue theory (as distinct from the Kushite-rescue theory). In sum, Evans dismisses unjustifiably three of my sampling’s six supporters of the Kushite-rescue theory.


Criticism: Evans further lessens the importance of support for the hybrid Kushite-rescue theory by asserting that its supporters “only held to a contribution by the Cushites, and this contribution only assisted after the main reason for [the] Assyrian defeat – the pestilence/plague” (emphasis in original). Evans concludes: “In sum, the evidence that Aubin and Bellis present hardly shows a ‘Cushite-Rescue theory’ at all, but merely that some commentators/scholars viewed the rumour or actual presence of a Cushite force to have been a factor (but not the key factor) in Sennacherib’s withdrawal…” [/i]
This group would include: von Ewald (1803-1875), one of 19th-century 30 Germany’s most prominent Christian theologians; Wise (1819-1902), the Prague-educated rabbi who has been called the founder of U.S. Judaism, and the Church of 31 England’s Bishop Patrick (1626-1707), theologian and biblical commentator. Evans 32 does not say so, but the distinguished group would presumably also include by extension John Calvin (1509-1564), whose own hybrid variation calls for a degree of combat success by Kushite forces (at Pelusium, following Herodotus’s account) in combination with the actual angel of the Lord.


Response:
Evans gives importance to the distinction that exists between scholars who see the Kushites as being solely responsible for the retreat and those who see them as contributing to it hybrid-style. I do not. Evans says supporters of the latter view perceive the Kushites as being “only” and “merely” “a factor (but not the key factor)” in the withdrawal. Through both tone and definition he thus in effect devalues the Kushites’ involvement in the deliverance of Jerusalem: they would not have played a “key” role. The very notion of a downgrade, however, is peculiar. It is hard to see why carrying out their mission in tandem with disease or some other factor would diminish the value of the Kushites’ role. Both a scenario of the Kushite army singlehandedly causing a retreat (as advanced by Constable and Wilkinson) and a scenario that calls for Sennacherib to retreat in the face of a combination of disease and Kushite activity (as espoused by von Ewald, Wise and Patrick) present the Kushite role as essential --and therefore “key,” contrary to Evans’ claim. That is because even if, for the sake of argument, the Kushite role was simply the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back, the retreat would not have occurred without it. In war as in cinema, if one is a co-star one is also a star. Both scenarios also have something else important in common: I call it in the book a “respectful view of Kush.” The ten scholars in question assume that the 25th 33 Dynasty had the competence to enable, or to help enable, the survival of Judah and Jerusalem; it is an assumption hard to find among Western scholars during the late 34 19th and the 20th centuries. (See below).


Criticism:
After arguing for four pages that no consensus ever existed, Evans concludes: “t is obvious that, as far as establishing that the ‘Cushite-rescue theory’ was a prominent or consensus view prior to the closing decades of the 19th century, Aubin and Bellis have hardly done what one could call a scholarly treatment, and their research does not approach the thoroughness necessary to support such wide-reaching statements.” 39

Response:
Evans thus disparages me for, in effect, failing to substantiate a claim I do not make. The gratuitous condemnation of my scholarship concludes the opening segment of Evans’ article. To recapitulate: in addition to misrepresenting my argument, he attacks my list of ten scholars who see the Kushites as having “played some sort of significant role (whether supporting or leading) in turning back Sennacherib” by wrongly eliminating some cases and marginalizing the importance of others on tendentious grounds, thus leaving only three unchallenged. The list of ten supporters stands.


5. Not taking into account the study’s full content

Criticism: Evans suggests that my critique of scholarly views on the Kushites starting in the colonial era is too narrow: “Apparently scholars’ opinions are researched only in so far as to determine whether they viewed Cush as rescuing Jerusalem or not.” 62


Response:
Nonsense. Evans focuses his article mostly on my Chapter 18, which deals with scholars’ views on who or what saved Jerusalem. That chapter’s discussion presupposes readers’ familiarity with earlier parts of the book. Evans’ charge ignores: • Chapter 17’s nine-page treatment of how numerous 20th-century scholars view the 25th Dynasty’s relations with Palestine outside of the context of whether or not that dynasty helped save Jerusalem.

• Chapter 13’s fifteen-page discussion of how 20th-century biblical scholars perceive the Hebrew Bible’s treatment of the Kushites in contexts other than that of Sennacherib’s campaign. 63

• Briefer treatments of scholarly views on other aspects of the Kushites. Chapter 6, for example, highlights 20th-century scholars’ remarkably positive views toward Kushite art, including architecture. Also, to provide contrast for the views of colonial-era scholars, Chapter 18 itself cites prominent pre-colonial historians’ positive opinions on Kush outside the context of Jerusalem’s crisis.


ANd so on- snip... see link below:
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9hGyhA-ZDzEJ:www.henryaubin.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/Riposte-April-1-2018.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b- 1-ab

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



One striking thing about AUbin's argument is how some earlier/older scholars
acknowledged African influence, but this earlier tradition was downplayed
or dismissed. A similar pattern appears in the researches of SOY KEita,
where he points out that some older studies freely acknowledged the
African character of Kemet, but then another model took over-
so that once acknowledged African specimens began to be reclassified
as "Mediterranean" or excluded altogether.

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

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


Martin Bernal made similar points as to a shift in BLack Athena
on related issues, as did George James back in the 1950s pointing
out that the Greeks freely and unashamedly acknowledged Egyptian
influence and their debt to Egypt.

This long tradition of older scholarship, by people who today might be
considered "racist", debunks today's bogus boilerplate that to insist
on, or comment on Kemet's African foundation and reality is due to modern
"political correctness", when in fact, "conservative"
tradition centuries earlier acknowledged that foundation.

[zarahan]

Some studies on early prehistoric Nile Valley Populations show substantial so-called "sub-Saharan" elements
QUOTE:


"The early Holocene deposits at Lake Besaka and Buur Heybe have provided the earliest evidence in the Horn of intentional human burial. At the site of FeJx 2 at Lake Besaka the incomplete remains of five human skeletons were found buried in Abadir Phase sediments alongside an irregular pile of stones, with the most complete specimen composed of the upper half of the body only. No evidence of carnivore activity could be observed, while many of the bones were burnt (Clark and Williams 1978). However, no cut marks or any other indication of cannibalism was discovered, while the texture of the bones indicated they were probably surrounded by flesh when buried (Dechant and Crader t982). Of particular interest was a fragment of a human long bone through which a hole approximately 6 mm in diameter had been intentionally drilled as if for suspension (McCown n.d.). Needless to say', 'some unusual burial custom' is suggested (Clark and Williams 1978:37). No evidence of grave goods was found in direct association with the burials, although two bone tubes and a cache of over thirty gastropod shells pierced as if for suspension were found next to the stone pile (ibid.). Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (McCown rod.).
Steven A. Brandt, 'The Upper Pleistocene and early Holocene prehistory of the Horn of Africa', The African Archaeological Review, 4 (I986), pp. 41-82

"Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene."
--- Pinhasi 2000. 'The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine Populations', Journal of Human Evolution (2000) vol. 39.

"In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.
-- Pierre M. Vermeersch, 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).

[zarahan]

Ancient African biological elements found far afield in various eras- from Palestine, to Anatolia to Europe.

QUOTE:
"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic
migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations.
From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Sabaran genetic lineages (affiliated
with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the
Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004;
Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004;
King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004;
Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with
sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the
early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the
33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late
Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania
(Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the
western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity,
similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity
pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other Investigators
(Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al.
(2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations
is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some
of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan
ancestral populations......

This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

--Ricaut et al 2008.Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements. HumBio 80, v5, pp535-564

[zarahan]

QUICK SNAPSHOT: Stacked decks and rigged samples in studies of Africa and the Nile Valley...







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

[zarahan]

New DNA studies debunk stereotypical models and simplistic claims about "black" Africans, which too often ignore the fact that Africans have the most diversity in skin color, and developed lighter skin color WITHIN Africa first, BEFORE any out-of-Africa migrations. No fundamental "race mix" is thus needed to explain sub-Saharan African light skin color, which is as “native” as dark skin.

QUOTE: "The strongest association is in SLC24A5, which is a well-known pigmentation gene (Lamason et al., 2005... including missense mutations that influence skin and eye pigmentation (Table 2), are at high frequency in the KhoeSan... these variants arose in southern Africa more than 100,000 years ago and were later selected for in Europeans after the out-of-Africa migration..

Because African populations often carry the ancestral (i.e., dark) allele for skin pigmentation genes identified in Eurasians, allusions to African skin pigmentation have ignored the great variability in this phenotype across Africa. Here, we reiterate that skin pigmentation varies more in Africa than in any other continent, and we show that pigmentation in African populations cannot simply be explained by the small number of large-effect alleles discovered in Eurasians. Even in lightly to moderately pigmented KhoeSan populations, the polygenicity of skin pigmentation is much greater than in Eurasians, encompassing both known pigmentation genes as well as novel loci."
--Martin et al., 2017, An Unexpectedly Complex Architecture for Skin Pigmentation in Africans. Cell 171, 1340–1353

[zarahan]

Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic limb proportion and climate notes- From Europe to the Nile Valley












"Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded
at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length
in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both
bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an
African rather than Levantine affinity.“
-- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admix.. In: Egypt &
the Levant.. Leicester Univ. 118-128


"The biological characteristics of modern
Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting
their geographic location between sub-Saharan
Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA,
blood groups, serum proteins and genetic
disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings
et al. 1999). They can also be expressed in
phenotypic characteristics that can be identified
in teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992;
Keita 1996). These characteristics include head
form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw
relationships, tooth size, morphology and
upper/lower limb proportions. In all these
features, Modern Egyptians resemble Sub-Saharan
Africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995)."

-- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological
evidence for admixture between populations in the
southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third
millennia BCE. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds.
Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the
3rd millenium, BCE. 118-128

[zarahan]

A tropical people, African-American limb proportions have long been used as a proxy to study height and stature of ancient Egyptian populations, who cluster closer to the Americans than Europeans and other groups. Extended to Nubians in a recent study, results are the same. Though distant in time and space, the Black Americans, ancient Egyptians and ancient Nubians cluster together- indices with some differences- but overall, the closest fit.




"Stature is a component of the biological profile along with age, sex, and ancestry. In bioarchaeological contexts, changes in stature or body proportions over time can indicate trends in the health of a population. However, stature regression equations are likely to be inaccurate when applied to populations temporally and geographically distant from their reference sample. This study tested the accuracy of previously published regression equations on a well-preserved medieval Nubian collection and hypothesized that stature would be significantly overestimated. The study sample was drawn from a skeletal collection representing three Upper Nubian medieval cemeteries (300-1500AD) excavated by the British Museum along the Fourth Cataract in Sudan - sites 3-J-10, 3-J-11, and 4-M-142. Based on preservation of required skeletal elements, living stature was calculated for 36 males and 33 females using the revised Fully method (Raxter et al. 2006).These data were compared to point estimates from regression equations for modern American blacks (Trotter and Gleser 1952) and ancient Egyptians (Raxter et al. 2008). Although distant in both time and space, these groups represented the closest proxies for Nubians among previously published studies..

Results indicated significant differences between both sets of estimates and the Fully revised method living statures (p<0.001). Both Trotter and Gleser (1952) and Raxter (2008) equations overestimated living stature in this sample of medieval Nubians. These results confirmed the need for new stature regression equations for males and females in this region and time period. Equations were then developed using single and multiple long bone measurements.. The results of the one-way t-test confirm the hypothesis: American black and Ancient Egyptian stature regression equations systematically overestimate height in medieval Nubians by an average of 1.72-2.16cm. However, the results of the ANOVA suggest that the resulting point stature estimates are not significantly different from the revised Fully statures."
--Niespodziewanski Streetman, Emily (2014). Testing stature equations on a medieval Upper Nubian skeletal sample. Mich State Univ. 83 AnnMt AJPA 2014

[zarahan]

Recent study again confirms what has been shown in objective scientific research for
over a century, the close population relationship between Nubians and Egyptians.



EXCERPT FROM:
Godde, K., 2018. A new analysis interpreting Nilotic relationships and peopling of the Nile Valley. Homo. v69, I4, pp 147-157

QUOTE:
"The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical changes over a great deal of time. This study seeks to evaluate the relationships of Nubian and Egyptian groups in the context of the original peopling event. Cranial nonmetric traits from 18 Nubian and Egyptian samples, spanning Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia and approximately 7400 years, were analyzed using Mahalanobis D2 as a measure of biological distance. A principal coordinates analysis and spatial-temporal model were applied to these data. The results reveal temporal and spatial patterning consistent with documented events in Egyptian and Nubian population history. Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos **maintained **genetic similarity among the populations.

Quote:
“In 2005, Keita proffered a novel method to view Nubian-Egyptian relationships; he suggested that military interactions could not alone account for the biological similarities among the two populations. Rather, Keita (2005) saw the relationship as a continuum, dating back to the late Pleistocene and mid-Holocene, placing importance on the peopling of the Nile Valley as the initial cause for genetic similarity. Linguistic family dispersals, environmental pressures, and other sociopolitical events were tied to occupation and subsequent affinity.

Moreover, the military provided opportunity for contact as Nubians were mercenaries in the Egyptian army and the Egyptian army fought against Nubians (Trigger, 1976).”

Quote:
“The close relationship of Badari, Naqada, and Kerma present in several studies (e.g., Godde, 2009a; Keita, 1990; Nutter, 1958)
was not detectable here. The addition of a number of Nubian samples not included in prior work allowed a different depiction of the
nature of the relationship of Kerma to the Predynastic samples to come to light, and which is in line with their shared population
history. Thousands of years separate the Predynastic and Kerma samples, which, in combination with gene flow, will act as a
homogenizing force (Konigsberg, 1990; c.f., Godde, 2009a), so it is possible that gene flow from later Egyptian groups led to an
affinity among the Predynastic Egyptians and people from Kerma and explains why there is still a close relationship present in the
PCO graph. However, under a model of population history, later northern Egyptians should also cluster more closely with southern
Predynastic groups than with Nubians. When taking into account the peaceful interactions of the assimilation (Buchez and Midant-
Reynes, 2011) and interaction (Köhler, 1995, 2008) models, it is anticipated the northern and southern Egyptians should be closely
related.

In that vein, it is expected that the Gizeh, Lisht, Cairo, and Coptic samples would plot more closely to the Badari and Naqada
groups, which is true of Gizeh (Last Dynastic Period), Lisht (Middle Kingdom), and the Coptic group. Cairo is more remotely located
on the plot, probably related to higher levels of genetic drift/low amounts of gene flow, but there is nothing to suggest that its
distance is evidence of anything more than a composite sample including individuals from Omdurman about which little information
is known. The skeletal differences between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples have been viewed as markedly profound in the
past, causing scholars to hypothesize a foreign population had entered the area and were in place during the Early Dynastic (e.g.,
Derry, 1956). There are documented cranial differences between the Predynastic and later Egyptians, however, in this analysis,
within group variation was not high in the Predynastic and Lisht (closest sample to post-date the Predynastic) samples and, while
they did not plot adjacent to each other, there is **nothing to indicate** in the PCO plot the intrusion of a foreign group. Instead, it
appears the Predynastic were likely adapted to a harsher, earlier environment and resource acquisition and the later Egyptians to the
lifeways afforded by their civilization. Badari and Naqada still plotted adjacent to one another, which also makes sense spatially
(Upper Egypt) and temporally (Predynastic), and is consistent with craniometric assessment of Predynastic groups (Keita and Godde,
2016)."

===============================================

THESE RELATIONSHIPS EXTENDED TO THE HIGHEST LEVELS- AS SEVERAL DYNASTIES SHOW STRONG NUBIAN LINKS, AGAIN
DEMONSTRATED NUMEROUS YEARS BEFORE. THESE DATA UNDERMINE SIMPLISTIC "SPLITTISM" MODELS FOR THE 2 PEOPLES ..




==================================================

[zarahan]

Ancient Egyptian Rock Art shows Dinka affinities in bovid horn manipulation

Potentially, the tradition of manipulating bovid horns dates to the Predynastic Period. Darnell describes one of the figures with the Wadi of the Horus Qa’a tableau as possessing horns that are “excessively zigzagging” suggestive of bull horns, which are “normal or artificially altered”, or an addax (2006: g. 11, n.27 and references therein; 2009).In addition, but with reservations, a clay figurine, referred to as “sheep,”appears to exhibit at least one curved horn and dates to the late Predynastic or Early Dynastic Period (Ayrton et al., 1911: pl. XXI 8).

Modern ethnographic accounts of the Dinka in Sudan note a similar tradition of surgically altering bulls’ horns so that one grows downward, curving toward the face (Schwabe, 1984: 138-156). In both the ancient (Huyge, 2001) and modern (Schwabe, 1984: 143-144, 147-148, 152) accounts, the bulls depicted with altered horns represent sacrificial animals.

FROM:
--Lauren E Lippiello, et al. 2012. Rock art in Wadi Silwa Bahari, Egypt Part 1: Occasion of discovery and site content. Sahara 22/2012. p57-68

[zarahan]

Father of Egyptology Petrie on Egyptian links with other fellow African cultures..