Origin of the Badarians

[Charlie Bass]

Africa and the world: an introduction to the history of sub-Saharan Africa ... By Lewis H. Gann, Peter Duignan p.135-136

[sundiata]

Honestly, this is a crap citation. How does one go from having "a trace of Negroid", to being virtually indistinguishable from the Teita/Taita of Kenya (a Bantu people) as described in a 2005 study?

Here's an actual anthropological study dealing with the origin of the Badarians.

wysinger.homestead.com/badari.pdf

[Charlie Bass]

Apr 2, 2010 16:39:06 GMT -5 sundiata said:

Honestly, this is a crap citation. How does one go from having "a trace of Negroid", to being virtually indistinguishable from the Teita/Taita of Kenya (a Bantu people) as described in a 2005 study?

Here's an actual anthropological study dealing with the origin of the Badarians.

wysinger.homestead.com/badari.pdf

I only posted it because of the cultural information, that a population could have a trace of "Negroid" is typological garbage that is rejected today.

[zarahan]

Yep, circa 1972 but interesting cultural detail.

[calabooz]

Question: when they speak of the origins of the Badarians, are they referring to the culture and not the people? I ask because of the following citation:

"The theory that the Badarian originated in the south is, however, no longer accepted." from Ian Shaw's Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt page pg39

Does the above citation refer to the culture? I would think so due to the fact that the Badarians show strong affinities to southern Africans.

[sundiata]

^The above citation deals with culture (not ultimate biogeographic origin). Immediately thereafter, shaw suggests affinities with people in Egypt's western desert. The people in Egypt's western desert were not Badarians therefore, it CAN be argued that the Badarians didn't migrate directly from the south. The citation from Myra about "the early African pool of cultures from which emerged Egypt" mentions the movements that were likely to have preceded this and THIS is where we track ultimately the origins of these people (and not necessarily their unique Badarian culture).

[beyoku]

Ian "Anything but the South" Shaw is all over the place. As well as his other Euro flunkies.

First its the Western Desert, then its the Red Sea hills. The other dendrogram is much more accurate because it has more populations. What this DUMBO does not want to admit is that folks of the inner Sahara, western Desert AND those of the Eastern Desert all come from the "South". The Tigre peoples cluster very close to the Naqada and Kerma as well as other Nubian groups to the Badarians. From the evidence put forth so far, ANY Africans will cluster with the Badarians because Badarians are African, some are just more accurate than others. Doesnt matter if its the Zulu, Teita, Bushman or Kerma, they will cluster before Eurasians....Its to be expected. Some results though are more accurate of real genetic history and migrations vs others that may be more Superficial : Badarians having a RECENT relationship with San Bushman that have been in South Africa for over 30-40 thousands years.

The Red Sea hills even in EGYPT have historically been the areas of the Beja. The SOUTHERN Western Desert the home of Nilo-Saharan pastorialist. The ONLY reason that Ian "Anything but the South" Shaw presents such a hypothesis is the mask and obscure the identity and sources of migrations because people in these areas (For the most part) NO LONGER EXIST. People of "The South" are STILL There so it helps him (and others) to sleep better by ignoring the major contribution of the Southerners that can be easily traced through Cranial, Genetic , linguistic, and cultural evidence........and instead focus on phantom migrants that no longer exist in their current state from the East and Western desert that is now almost entirely abandoned.

In those "Admixture" runs you have been seeing, using the "Bulala" people as Nilo saharan source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilala_people

NORTHERN Egyptians STILL have Nilotic ancestry in the "Teens" (1X%) right a long with Tunisians and other North Africans and Horners. These fools are playing a waiting game using smoke, mirrors and SEMANTICS.....Hoping some new info would popup to support them but it never does. I would almost feel sorry for them...

[calabooz]

^The above citation deals with culture (not ultimate biogeographic origin). Immediately thereafter, shaw suggests affinities with people in Egypt's western desert. The people in Egypt's western desert were not Badarians therefore, it CAN be argued that the Badarians didn't migrate directly from the south. The citation from Myra about "the early African pool of cultures from which emerged Egypt" mentions the movements that were likely to have preceded this and THIS is where we track ultimately the origins of these people (and not necessarily their unique Badarian culture).

OK, what I though

First its the Western Desert, then its the Red Sea hills. The other dendrogram is much more accurate because it has more populations. What this DUMBO does not want to admit is that folks of the inner Sahara, western Desert AND those of the Eastern Desert all come from the "South". The Tigre peoples cluster very close to the Naqada and Kerma as well as other Nubian groups to the Badarians. From the evidence put forth so far, ANY Africans will cluster with the Badarians because Badarians are African, some are just more accurate than others. Doesnt matter if its the Zulu, Teita, Bushman or Kerma, they will cluster before Eurasians....Its to be expected. Some results though are more accurate of real genetic history and migrations vs others that may be more Superficial : Badarians having a RECENT relationship with San Bushman that have been in South Africa for over 30-40 thousands years.

It's interesting that the Badarian have been shown to be morphologically homogeneous (Zakrzewski 2002, 2007)

[zarahan]

Ian "Anything but the South" Shaw is all over the place. As well as his other Euro flunkies.

First its the Western Desert, then its the Red Sea hills. The other dendrogram is much more accurate because it has more populations. What this DUMBO does not want to admit is that folks of the inner Sahara, western Desert AND those of the Eastern Desert all come from the "South". The Tigre peoples cluster very close to the Naqada and Kerma as well as other Nubian groups to the Badarians. From the evidence put forth so far, ANY Africans will cluster with the Badarians because Badarians are African, some are just more accurate than others. Doesnt matter if its the Zulu, Teita, Bushman or Kerma, they will cluster before Eurasians....Its to be expected. Some results though are more accurate of real genetic history and migrations vs others that may be more Superficial : Badarians having a RECENT relationship with San Bushman that have been in South Africa for over 30-40 thousands years.

The Red Sea hills even in EGYPT have historically been the areas of the Beja. The SOUTHERN Western Desert the home of Nilo-Saharan pastorialist. The ONLY reason that Ian "Anything but the South" Shaw presents such a hypothesis is the mask and obscure the identity and sources of migrations because people in these areas (For the most part) NO LONGER EXIST. People of "The South" are STILL There so it helps him (and others) to sleep better by ignoring the major contribution of the Southerners that can be easily traced through Cranial, Genetic , linguistic, and cultural evidence........and instead focus on phantom migrants that no longer exist in their current state from the East and Western desert that is now almost entirely abandoned.

In those "Admixture" runs you have been seeing, using the "Bulala" people as Nilo saharan source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilala_people

NORTHERN Egyptians STILL have Nilotic ancestry in the "Teens" (1X%) right a long with Tunisians and other North Africans and Horners. These fools are playing a waiting game using smoke, mirrors and SEMANTICS.....Hoping some new info would popup to support them but it never does. I would almost feel sorry for them...

Good points but don't feel sorry for them. They are working around
the clock, they control the academy, are well financed, and control
popular media outlets such as Natl Geographic. DNA studies
are being used increasingly to muddy the waters- a typical
tactic being to make shaky statements that endorse the old
race categories, but to not be too open about it. The DNA is
then brought in as an overlay, a gloss to lend seeming scientific
support. The deck is stacked against those who want to show
a more balanced picture of Egypt in its African context.
Luckily, some scholars are using this balanced approach and
have put enough data out there so people can analyze altenative
viewpoints. There has been movement in the mainstream towards
several of Diop's conclusions. Credit to those balanced scholars.

Then there is what is outside the academy - on "the street" and web.
The frantic lengths some go deny to the African context shows that
a battle is still very much on. Take the diagram below. A viewer
does not have to agree with it, but they have the research citations in
full. They can check it out for themselves. Contrast the free flow
of information on ES Reloaded with the moles on Wikipedia, who
will desperately edit war tooth and nail to make sure such citations
do not get into various articles, or will try to bury and obscure the data.
When not using brute force openly and blatantly they apply
continual deception, duplicity and dubious propaganda in collaboration
with assorted Wiki administrators. Their little clique thinks it is all sown up.
But the free, democratic flow of information defeats them again and again.
And while they are guarding their petty Wiki empires getting 5 hits a day,
the democratic flow of information keeps expanding on the web in a
massively greater way. The battle is still on, but if we keep patiently building
"the base", they will be continually exposed and demolished.

[sundiata]

Calabooz. It seems Shaw is an advocate for "anything but the south". On Badarians Shaw concludes:

"It seems that the Badarian Culture did not appear from a single source although the Western Desert was probably the predominant one. On the other hand the provenance of domesticated plants remains controversial; an origin in the Levant via the Lower Egyptian Faiyum and Merimda Cultures might be possible."

^So not only did he believe the Badarians could have come from the Levant (disproved by Keita two years later), but also that the peoples of the Fayum and Merimde actually did. If the only thing you base your affinities of an archaeogical community on (despite pottery, lithic, cattle, and other traditions) is the presence of domesticated plants, then I'm sorry, you either are biased/have an agenda or are not very smart.

[truthteacher2007]

May 5, 2011 19:17:45 GMT -5 sundiata said:

Calabooz. It seems Shaw is an advocate for "anything but the south". On Badarians Shaw concludes:

"It seems that the Badarian Culture did not appear from a single source although the Western Desert was probably the predominant one. On the other hand the provenance of domesticated plants remains controversial; an origin in the Levant via the Lower Egyptian Faiyum and Merimda Cultures might be possible."

^So not only did he believe the Badarians could have come from the Levant (disproved by Keita two years later), but also that the peoples of the Fayum and Merimde actually did. If the only thing you base your affinities of an archaeogical community on (despite pottery, lithic, cattle, and other traditions) is the presence of domesticated plants, then I'm sorry, you're either are biased/have an agenda or are not very smart.

Lets just say for arguments sake that agriculture did originate in Western Asia. That's a far different thing than the population originating there. All it would mean is that they borrowed and adapted a technology to suit their needs. Just as the fact that Japan produces automobiles could not be used as proof that the Japanese people originated in North America.

In any case, last I heard agriculture in that part of Africa developed in the Sahara and was a suppliment to gatheing and hunting. In otherwords, it didn't develop in settled communities, but in migratory ones during certain times of the year. This would suggest an independent development rather than a borrowed technology since it was radically different from what was being practiced in the Levant.

[sundiata]

^Actually analysis of early wheat and barley shows that the earliest plant domesticates in Egypt came from the near east, but you are absolutely correct that they adapted it to their lifestyle on their own terms. For instance, Wetterstrom says early domesticates were first seen as merely a back up resource in times of Nile flooding. Over time, the Egyptians became dependent on agriculture, probably as the populations began to grow. Further proof of this is that names for near eastern domesticates were not Semitic or near eastern loan words. Interestingly, Keita and Boyce point out that some of the names for near eastern domesticates in the Semitic languages are actually Sumerian loan words.

[beyoku]

Just to add - Another thing to keep in mind is the time span that that separates agriculture in Africa vs that of the Near East.

Near East is Farming at 9000 BC
Egypt is farming at 5-6000BC

There is a gap of over 3000 years. This tells you a bit about the importance or lack there of regarding the movement of people and their ideas into Africa. If there are mass movements into Africa by farmers WHERE ARE THE FARMERS during that 3-4 THOUSAND year period? - Common sense approach.

[maiherpra]

Apr 6, 2011 9:12:39 GMT -5 calabooz said:

Question: when they speak of the origins of the Badarians, are they referring to the culture and not the people? I ask because of the following citation:

"The theory that the Badarian originated in the south is, however, no longer accepted." from Ian Shaw's Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt page pg39

Does the above citation refer to the culture? I would think so due to the fact that the Badarians show strong affinities to southern Africans.

You are essentially correct in pointing out the absurd bias of Egyptology against the African origin of Egypt. However they are nonetheless scientist. And in moments of clarity their science tiumphs over their racist ideologies. For eg. The same authour you quote also writes:

The existence of a still earlier culture, the Tasian has been claimed. This culture would have been characterized by the presence of round-based calciform beakers with incised designs filled with white pigmet, which are also known from contexts of similar date in Neolithic Sudan. However the existence of the Tasian as a chronologically or culturally separated unit has never been demonstrated beyond doubt. Although most scholars consider the Tasian to be simply part of the Badarian culture, it has also been argued that the Tasian represents the continuation of a lower Egyptian tradition, which would be the immediate predecessor of the Naqada I culture. This however seems rather implausible, first because similarities with the Lower Egyptian Neolithic cultures are not convincing, and secondly, because of the Tasian's obvious ceramic links with the Sudan. If the Tasian must be considered as a separate cultural entity, then it might represent a nomadic culture with a Sudanese background, which interacted with the Badarian culture.

And also of the Saharan Neolithic:

The rainfall is a result of the northward shift of the monsoon belt;therefore human occupation in the Western Desert started from the south. The Settlers came most probably from the Nile Valley, an idea that is primarily based on the absence of other possibilities, but seems to be confirmed by similarities with the lithic technology of sites in the Nubian Valley.