Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Egyptian civilisation and ancient Egyptians

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-07-08
    Posts
    2


    Country: United Kingdom



    Egyptian civilisation and ancient Egyptians

    did you know that th ancient egyptians

    were not white

    but were cushites

    and are related to horn of africans

    including somali and other in horn of africa

    the somali language has names from the ancient egypt language

    the ancient egyptians were tall narrow thin and tall

    just like somalians ethipians and eriterians

    they were dark skinned

    and they used to visit somali which was called punt land

    and trade with the somalian there relates

    and the somali dna are 80 percent cushites

    the cushites are ancestor

    of prophet noah pbuh

    son

    the are hamites

    so that why they look quite different that other africans

    reply

  2. #2
    The Hairy Wookie Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    51
    Posts
    914


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by somaliboy2008 View Post
    did you know that th ancient egyptians
    were not white, but were cushites and are related to horn of africans including somali and other in horn of africa. The somali language has names from the ancient egypt language
    Your point being what exactly?

    The ancient egyptians were tall narrow thin and tall just like somalians ethipians and eriterians. They were dark skinned and they used to visit somali which was called punt land and trade with the somalian there relates and the somali dna are 80 percent cushites
    Seeing as all humans originated in africa, this is not s surprise.

    The cushites are ancestor of prophet noah pbuh, son the are hamites so that why they look quite different that other africans

    reply
    Number one, Noah never existed, the ark never existed, there was never a global flood, so that line is just pure BS.
    Number two. That is racist crap and you have no real understanding of DNA and human ancestry. Research and evidence is required before making such statements. If you do not then a ban hammer is heading your way. Consider that a warning.
    Number three. If this is just building up to be some religious rubbish on how Islam is the real religion, don't come back because the ban hammer will fall far and hard on you. Preaching is not allowed here, go to some religious site for that BS.
    Number 4. Please post in a more considerate way than just a line, space, line, space. It makes it easier to read. Also, puncuation is your friend, along with grammar.

  3. #3
    No Beer No Point Starship's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-09-07
    Location
    Dublin
    Age
    49
    Posts
    169


    Ethnic group
    Irish
    Country: Ireland



    O for God sake no Noah? that was one of my favourite stories as a child especially the bit about the bird returning with a leaf in his beak, so they were all saved. Its a pain growing up all our childhood fairy tales are taken from us, Noah's Ark, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, the right to vote no. What are we left with, man made Global warming, not much of a bed time story tail.

  4. #4
    Junior Member MOHAMMEd21's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-06-09
    Posts
    5


    Country: Egypt



    Quote Originally Posted by somaliboy2008 View Post
    did you know that th ancient egyptians

    were not white

    but were cushites

    and are related to horn of africans

    including somali and other in horn of africa

    the somali language has names from the ancient egypt language

    the ancient egyptians were tall narrow thin and tall

    just like somalians ethipians and eriterians

    they were dark skinned

    and they used to visit somali which was called punt land

    and trade with the somalian there relates

    and the somali dna are 80 percent cushites

    the cushites are ancestor

    of prophet noah pbuh

    son

    the are hamites

    so that why they look quite different that other africans

    reply
    Yes we egyptiens related to the same race of east africa but don`t looks like somalians
    also Amazigh in norht africa related to the same race and not black
    at all the east african race is caucasion and not african or related to west africa
    ancient egypt language looks like other east africa languages in we still use words from that ancient language till now

    and trade with the somalian there relates
    ya thats true in the time of hatshipsote but we also traded we many other nations....Don`t forget that

    so that why they look quite different that other africans
    what do you mean by that??
    you mean east african or egyptiens

  5. #5
    Regular Member SekhemreKhutawy's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-01-12
    Location
    Louisiana
    Age
    32
    Posts
    11


    Ethnic group
    Greek-Cypriot
    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by somaliboy2008 View Post
    did you know that th ancient egyptians


    were not white


    but were cushites


    and are related to horn of africans


    including somali and other in horn of africa


    the somali language has names from the ancient egypt language


    the ancient egyptians were tall narrow thin and tall


    just like somalians ethipians and eriterians


    they were dark skinned


    and they used to visit somali which was called punt land


    and trade with the somalian there relates


    and the somali dna are 80 percent cushites


    the cushites are ancestor


    of prophet noah pbuh


    son


    the are hamites


    so that why they look quite different that other africans


    reply



    It depends on what you mean by "white." There has always been an overlap in phenotype between Europeans, Near Easterners, and North Africans throughout time--in prehistory (aside from "Caucasian" craniofacial type), before the emergence of light skin in Europe, when they were likely the same shade of brown as darker Middle Eastern people that you can find in that region today, whom North Africans were likely very similar to as well (though white wouldn't have been a concept) ...and into the present...where these regions have West Eurasian-specific genes in common responsible for light skin, albeit nearly fixed in Europeans and in varying, but significant, frequency in the latter two, in which you find a cline in skin tone from light to dark (ruddy Middle Eastern-like brown).


    Aside from this subjective definition....


    The Egyptians were not "Cushites." Related in a couple ways, but not Cushites. They didn't even speak a Cushitic language. Rather, their own language was a direct branch from Afro-Asiatic, as they are descended from a parent Afro-Asiatic stock that occupied Northern Africa's Nile Valley region from Egypt and into Nubia. There would be a split in these peoples that would bring about the Egyptians, and the others in the Nubian region becoming mixed with Nilotic peoples and adopting their Nilo-Saharan tongue...the Nubian language. The Egyptians referred to Nubia as "Kash/Kush" if this is what you mean by Cushites. But just because admixed Nubians share(d) a portion of their lineage with Egyptians doesn't mean the Egyptians were "black Cushites."


    "Genetic continuum of the Nubians with their kin in southern Egypt is indicated by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the predominant M78 subclade among southern Egyptians." (Hassan et al. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese)


    As for them being related to Horn Africans, people like you with a pan-African racial approach to African history (particularly pertaining to Northern and Eastern Africa) fail to note WHY there is a relation between Horners, like Somalis, because you jump to conclusions. In every craniofacial study, ancient Egyptian crania only shows a close relation to *modern* Horn Africans. Maybe you never took the time to see why East Africans such as Somalis obtained the E-M78 chromosome that originated in North Africa:


    "In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa."


    "In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be only explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in northeastern Africa."
    Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12
    Cruciani (2007)


    Genotype, along with climate, is responsible for phenotype.


    somaliboy2008 says: "the ancient egyptians were tall narrow thin and tall
    just like somalians ethipians and eriterians"


    What evidence is there that gracile and linear body types infers recent East African ancestry?


    "Somatic response to a desert climate tends to select a linear body structure, often with a less massive and less massively wide skull than usual among European Neanderthals."
    The People
    By J. Lawrence Angel


    As Shomarka Keita noted, the Egyptians were a continuous population of local origin. The whole crux of the pan-Africanist argument is that these were "tropical" Africans living in North Africa, based on limb proportions, and that would mean they had "black" skin as well. It doesn't seem like there is evidence that makes it certain you have to be "black-skinned" in order to have "tropical" limb ratios:


    "In terms of femoral and tibial length to total skeletal height proportions, we found that ancient Egyptians are **significantly different from US Blacks**, although still closer to Blacks than to Whites."
    Stature Estimation in Ancient Egyptians: A New Technique Based on Anatomical Reconstruction of Stature.
    Michelle H. Raxter, 2008


    And also from her:


    "Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians **are not identical**."


    And according to DH Temple, in his article, Variation in Limb Proportions Between Jomon Foragers and Yayoi Agriculturalists from Prehistoric Japan, similar limb proportions can arise in low-latitude non tropical environments:


    "Elongated distal relative to proximal limb lengths were observed among
    Jomon compared to Yayoi people. Jomon limb proportions were similar to human groups from **temperate**/tropical climates at **lower latitudes**, while Yayoi limb proportions more closely resemble groups from colder climates at higher latitudes."


    In that study, Windover Mummies from Southern Florida are also found to have elongated limbs...in a low-latitude temperate environment.


    So, considering they were North African evolved...it doesn't seem probable that they were the same skin tone as black Africans.
    Last edited by SekhemreKhutawy; 26-01-12 at 09:47.

  6. #6
    Regular Member himagain's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-10-11
    Location
    Samaria, Michigan
    Posts
    89

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1

    Ethnic group
    Germanic
    Country: USA - Michigan



    Ancient Egyptian culture lasted about four thousand years. Egyptian people in that era(s) included "whites" and "blacks". The society kept changing over time and so did the populations. If you look at their wall paintings you see the different racial types lived together and were all Egyptians. I can't understand why this isn't obvious to anyone seriously interested in the subject.

    The world is made up of so many types of people, what they accomplish is so much more worthwhile of notice, than mere racial differences.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SekhemreKhutawy's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-01-12
    Location
    Louisiana
    Age
    32
    Posts
    11


    Ethnic group
    Greek-Cypriot
    Country: USA - Louisiana



    No sorry. The Egyptians showed the difference between themselves and blacks, noted by most Egyptologists (Even anthropologists Robins and Schute noted that Egyptians having long limbs didn't mean they were "negroes," as supported by their art). Darker Egyptians depicted resemble darker Middle Eastern people. There is no reason to believe that Upper Egypt contained a significant number of admixed and black people. Many modern Upper Egyptians have been impacted by gene flow of black women into North Africa from the sub-Saharan region, due to the trans-Saharan slave trade associated with the spread of Arab culture across North Africa:

    "A proportion of 1/4 to 1/2 of North African female pool is made of typical sub-Saharan lineages, in higher frequencies as geographic proximity to sub-Saharan Africa increases. The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region, but the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade could have facilitate enormously this migration of lineages. Till now, the genetic consequences of these forced trans-Saharan movements of people have not been ascertained.

    The distribution of the main L haplogroups in North Africa clearly reflects the known trans-Saharan slave routes: West is dominated by L1b, L2b, L2c, L2d, L3b and L3d; the Center by L3e and some L3f and L3w; the East by L0a, L3h, L3i, L3x and, in common with the Center, L3f and L3w; while, L2a is almost everywhere. Ages for the haplogroups observed in both sides of the Saharan desert testify the recent origin (holocenic) of these haplogroups in sub-Saharan Africa, claiming a recent introduction in North Africa, further strengthened by the no detection of local expansions.

    The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations, namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Sub-Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago."

    The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade - Clues From Interpretation Analyses and High-Resolution Characterization of Mitochondrial DNA Lineages
    Harich et al. 2010

    They weren't a civilization of "different racial types." They were a continuous North African population originating in their region, as admitted by Shomarka Keita, Joel Irish, Michelle Raxter, etc. :

    "Specifically, an inspection of MMD
    values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance
    between samples from the first and second halves of this
    almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11–12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19thþ Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time."


    "Comparisons of linear body proportions of Old Kingdom and non-Old Kingdom period individuals, and workers and high officials in our sample found no statistically significant differences among them. Zakrzewski (2003) also found little evidence for differences in linear body proportions of Egyptians over a wider temporal range. In general, recent studies of skeletal variation among ancient Egyptians support scenarios of biological continuity through time. Irish (2006) analyzed quantitative and qualitative dental traits of 996 Egyptians from Neolithic through Roman periods, reporting the presence of a few outliers but concluding that the dental samples appear to be largely homogeneous and that the affinities observed indicate overall biological uniformity and continuity from Predynastic through Dynastic and Postdynastic periods."
    Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature
    Michelle H. Raxter (2008)

    "Egyptian continuity extends across time (as evidenced by affinities among the three predynastic, five of seven dynastic, and two or perhaps three Roman period samples) and space (as indicated by the mostly random distribution of points denoting Upper and Lower Egyptians)."

    "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population."
    Brace et. al 1993

    A civilization made up of different racial types wouldn't be biologically consistent or continuous if the "population kept changing over time."

  8. #8
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    As for them being related to Horn Africans, people like you with a pan-African racial approach to African history (particularly pertaining to Northern and Eastern Africa) fail to note WHY there is a relation between Horners, like Somalis, because you jump to conclusions. In every craniofacial study, ancient Egyptian crania only shows a close relation to *modern* Horn Africans. Maybe you never took the time to see why East Africans such as Somalis obtained the E-M78 chromosome that originated in North Africa:
    The fact that you fail to take into consideration is that M78 is a downstream mutation of M-35 which originated in Sub Saharan East Africa. Stating that the reason for modern Northeast populations to the south of Egypt having consistently been found to overlap with the early ancient Egyptians is due to the noted back migration above is equally faulty. It is not just modern Horn African populations whom share overlapping affinities with the ancient Egyptians, but also ancient populations within that same generalized region also did:

    "Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans." (S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)
    Perhaps one of the main facts that you are undermining is that the populations which has been consistently noted to have been "biologically essentially the same" (Keita, 93) to the ancient Egyptians were the ancient Nubians, and both populations share a general primary affinity with underlined populations listed above (Northeast Africans). This finding has been confirmed by many much more recent studies including Godde 2009:

    "The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix... In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian). These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2).

    The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians.

    Both mtDNA (Krings et al., 1999) and Y-Chromosome data (Hassan et al., 2008; Keita, 2005; Lucotte and Mercier, 2003) indicate that migrations, usually bidirectional, occurred along the Nile. Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence.

    On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).

    Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV.

    The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia.


    -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.
    The fact that the Nubia predates Egypt negates your claim that the affinity towards more southerly northeast African populations is due to a back migration from Egypt.

    As Shomarka Keita noted, the Egyptians were a continuous population of local origin
    Keita then followed that exact statement with "of local Northeast african ancestry":

    The whole crux of the pan-Africanist argument is that these were "tropical" Africans living in North Africa, based on limb proportions, and that would mean they had "black" skin as well. It doesn't seem like there is evidence that makes it certain you have to be "black-skinned" in order to have "tropical" limb ratios:
    You seem to be unaware of the fact that "dark skin" accompaning tropical limb proportions is in fact ecological principal. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as other tropical African populations, which means that they would have had a skin tone within the great range of that seen within tropically adapted populations. How dark, we don't know?

    "In terms of femoral and tibial length to total skeletal height proportions, we found that ancient Egyptians are **significantly different from US Blacks**, although still closer to Blacks than to Whites."
    Stature Estimation in Ancient Egyptians: A New Technique Based on Anatomical Reconstruction of Stature.
    Michelle H. Raxter, 2008
    What color do Pygmies and Melanesians have? These are who this study groups the ancient Egyptians with. Also the fact that there are other studies in which African Americans cluster exactly within that same tropical African grouping infers that it depends on which samples of African Americans are used (as the amount of non African admixture varies greatly amongst this self identified group):

    So, considering they were North African evolved...it doesn't seem probable that they were the same skin tone as black Africans.
    Most of North Africa does not lie within the tropics. With that being said the ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted. This means that the ancient Egyptians evolved within tropical Africa, which also means that they had "dark skin". Recent studies confirm that the melanin content in ancient Egyptians mummies was the same as that of tropical African populations:

    "During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. .. Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
    --(A-M Mekota and M Vermehren. (2005) Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues. Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pages 7-13
    Once I get past my first 10 post I will be allowed to accompany my post and quotes with the plots and maps from their actual studies.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    03-02-12
    Posts
    22


    Ethnic group
    Mediterranean
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Taharqa View Post
    The fact that you fail to take into consideration is that M78 is a downstream mutation of M-35 which originated in Sub Saharan East Africa. Stating that the reason for modern Northeast populations to the south of Egypt having consistently been found to overlap with the early ancient Egyptians is due to the noted back migration above is equally faulty. It is not just modern Horn African populations whom share overlapping affinities with the ancient Egyptians, but also ancient populations within that same generalized region also did:
    Your entire premise hinges on m-35 being of Sub Saharan - or what you're trying to imply - negroid origin, and it isn't the case, at all.

    "The presence of two underived E-M96 Saudi lineages raises interesting questions related to the macrohaplogroup DE-YAP phylogeography. The recent resolutions of the CDEF-M168 tripartite structure to the bipartite DE-YAP and CF-P143 [16,31] extends the conversation regarding the early successful colonization of Eurasia. While several scenarios remain potentially possible the most parsimonious model is the most prudent. This model proposes the successful colonization of Eurasia by migration(s) of populations containing precursor Y-chromosome founder macrohaplogroup CDET-M168 and basal mtDNA L3 representatives. Regions near but external to northeast Africa, like the Levant or the southern Arabian Peninsula could have served as an incubator for the early diversification of non-African uniparental haplogroup varieties like Y chromosome DE-YAP*, CF-P143* and mtDNA M and N molecular ancestors. These would have spread globally and diversified over time and space. This model would imply that both CF-P143 and the DE-YAP evolved nearby but outside Africa. One DE-YAP* ancestor would have spread to Asia and evolved to haplogroup D while another DE-YAP* returned to northeast Africa and evolved into hg E." (Abu-Amero; 2009)

    "Y-DNA haplogroup E would appear to have arisen in Northeast Africa based on the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration[...] E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west--both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea. Eb1b1 clusters are seen today in Western Europe, Southeast Europe, the Near East, Northeast Africa and Northwest Africa." (Y-DNA Haplogroup E and its Subclades - 2012)


    "E1b1a is an African lineage that probably expanded from northern African to sub-Saharan and equatorial Africa with the Bantu agricultural expansion."
    (Y-DNA Haplogroup E and its Subclades - 2012)

    Bantus, Nilotes and compay cluster with Pygmies and Khoisan in autosomal DNA tests and not with haplogroup CT-descended Eurasian populations of which encompasses the rest of the world.

    "studies support a primary division of human populations into sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasian populations" Chaabani; 2001

    "North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes." Henn et al; 2012



    And your listed source: S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 mentions nothing in support of your argument concerning m-35.



    Perhaps one of the main facts that you are undermining is that the populations which has been consistently noted to have been "biologically essentially the same" (Keita, 93) to the ancient Egyptians were the ancient Nubians, and both populations share a general primary affinity with underlined populations listed above (Northeast Africans). This finding has been confirmed by many much more recent studies including Godde 2009:

    The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix... In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian). These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2).

    The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians.

    Both mtDNA (Krings et al., 1999) and Y-Chromosome data (Hassan et al., 2008; Keita, 2005; Lucotte and Mercier, 2003) indicate that migrations, usually bidirectional, occurred along the Nile. Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence.

    On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).

    Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV.

    The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia.


    -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.


    And if we continue reading the next sentences, properly citing Godde's study, the part you deliberately excluded, the picture of Egyptian and Kerma affinities is placed in its full and proper context:

    "The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia. Collett (1933) concluded that Kerma was originally inhabited by Egyptians with neighboring Nubian settlements. Her investigation of the site pointed towards continuous Egyptian occupation of some sort at the site throughout the Kerma time period. This continued presence at Kerma is an optimal condition for gene flow to occur between the two populations... Small geographic distances between groups allow for the exchange of genes."

    So this is why Kerma shows affinities with Egyptians, the Kerma population *was* biologically Egyptian, hence the similarities with Egyptians. Goode/Collett made the distinction between Kerma and "neighboring Nubian settlements" - that is what makes them "closer" than the "other" populations, also noting there was some gene flow into the Nubian population by a continuous Egyptian occupation deep within Nubia. This fully explains why the population of Kerma is "biologically essentially the same" as Egyptians, as stated by your source "(Keita, 93)".




    The fact that the Nubia predates Egypt negates your claim that the affinity towards more southerly northeast African populations is due to a back migration from Egypt.
    No, they don't. *WHICH* "more southerly northeast African populations"? The Egyptians that occupied Kerma? Godde outlines things here for those that still don't get it.:

    "I haven't fully developed my opinion in relation to Sub-Saharan Africans and Nubians. There is little to nothing in the archaeological record or linguistic data that suggests contact between the two populations." Goode email to Charlie Bass 2011


    Keita then followed that exact statement with "of local Northeast african ancestry":

    That "local Northeast African ancestry" shows no affinity to Sub Saharan negroids as stated above by Godde and below by numerous other papers:

    "Because this report is preliminary, statistical analyses have not yet been undertaken. However, based on a qualitative inspection of the dentitions, it appears that: 1) dental phenetic homogeneity was prevalent among the Hierakonpolis inhabitants; and 2) they exhibit dental traits that ally them with other post-Pleistocene populations in greater North Africa. Prior work shows North Africans have morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. This dental pattern was shown to be ubiquitous among samples, regardless of distance—from the Canary Islands to Egypt and Nubia—or time—from 8,000 year-old Capsians to recent Berbers in western North Africa. This pattern, termed the “North African Dental Trait Complex,” includes high frequencies of several traits such as an interruption groove on UI2, M3 agenesis, and rocker jaw, plus a low occurrence of LM2 Y-5 groove pattern. All of these features are also present in Europeans and West Asians to some degree, but are uncommon in sub-Saharan peoples. Craniometric indicators appear to support these results, and European-like discrete traits, such as alveolar orthognathism, dolichocephaly, rhomboid orbits, narrow nasal aperture, and nasal sill, are prevalent… At present, my qualitative inspection of the 14 crania appears to support the preliminary dental findings: 1) Hierakonpolis inhabitants appear to be uniform in cranial size and form, and 2) they show some resemblance to other post-Pleistocene populations of North Africa, as well as Europe and West Asia. They appear distinct from post-Pleistocene sub-Saharan Africans.” ( “Preliminary Report on Analyses of the Hierakonpolis Human Remains” Dr. Joel D. Irish, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Nekhen News volume 12 Page 9& 10 2000)

    “Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed to describe and compare up to 36 dental morphological variants in 15 Neolithic through Roman-period Egyptian samples. Trait frequencies are determined, and phenetic affinities are calculated using the mean measure of divergence and Mahalanobis D2 statistics for discrete traits; the most important traits in generating this intersample variation are identified with correspondence analysis. Assuming that the samples are representative of the populations from which they derive, and that phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities are suggestive of overall population continuity. That is, other than a few outliers exhibiting extreme frequencies of nine
    influential traits, the dental samples appear to be largely homogenous and can be characterized as having morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. These findings are contrasted with those resulting from previous skeletal and other studies, and are used to appraise the viability of five Egyptian peopling scenarios. Specifically, affinities among the 15 time-successive samples suggest that: 1) there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into post dynastic times…Was there biological continuity between predynastic Naqada and Badarian peoples? Most researchers believe there is a direct relationship between these groups, based on material culture similarities (Brunton, 1932; Mond and Meyers, 1937; Massoulard, 1949; Arkelland Ucko, 1965; Kantor, 1965; Fairservis, 1972; Midant-Reynes, 2000a,b). A comparison of Badari to the Naqada and Hierakonpolis samples is supportive of this hypothesis,
    and contradicts the idea of a foreign origin for the Naqada (Petrie, 1939; Baumgartel, 1970). Badari is concordant with both Naqada samples for most traits (Table2). This correspondence is reflected by Badari’s 22-trait MMDs with Naqada (0.000) and Hierakonpolis (0.012). The former affinity indicates no difference between samples, and the latter is insignificant (Table 4). These relationships are also evidenced by the nearness of all three samples in the MDS diagrams (Figs. 2, 5) and CA row plot (Fig. 3). Interestingly, these results are at odds with those of workers who reported significant cranial non metric (Prowse and Lovell, 1996) and metric (Keita, 1996) differences between the same Badari and Naqada (NAQ) samples studied here. The reason for this disparity is unknown, but may be related to different sample sizes or types of data employed. Dental evidence for Badarian continuity does not simply end with the Naqada period. Of all samples, Badari exhibits the closest affinity to the 14 others based on its low mean MMD of 0.028 and central location in all diagrams (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). In fact, in the 22-trait MDS (Fig. 2), Badari is at the centroid of all 15 Egyptian samples, as shown in Figure 6…The lack of a closer affinity may be a result of purported supplementary influence on the Badarians from the Levant (Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000) or Eastern Desert (Holmes, 1989). Moreover, Gebel Ramlah is in the southernmost part of the Western Desert. The primary source of the Badarian culture is thought to have been the oases farther north (Caton-Thompson, 1926; Hassan, 1986, 1988; Holmes, 1989). the fact that Gebel Ramlah is closest to early Upper Egyptians, including Badari, suggests that a Western Desert origin remains a viable hypothesis… most are phenetically similar enough to imply population continuity from predynastic to perhaps Roman times. Beginning with Gebel Ramlah, its relative proximity to three of four early Upper Egyptian samples, including Badari, provides some indication of the latter’s origins. Affinities among the predynastic and most dynastic and post dynastic
    samples are then supportive of: 1) continuity between the Naqada and Badarian peoples, 2) an indigenous outgrowth of the dynastic period from the Naqada, 3) with some exceptions, biological uniformity throughout the dynastic period, and 4) continuity between the latter and subsequent Ptolemaic and Roman periods. (“Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through post dynastic peoples” J.D. Irish Copyright 2006 Wiley-Liss,
    Inc.)

    "Ancient Egyptians had simple, mass reduced teeth. This contrasts with the dental pattern of Sub-Saharan Africans who had (Irish, 2000) massive complex teeth.”

    “the observation that teeth of American blacks are larger than those of American whites.” (“Tissue contributions to sex and race: Differences in tooth crown size of deciduous molars” Edward F. Harris, Joseph D. Hicks, Betsy D. Barcroft College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee 2001)




    You seem to be unaware of the fact that "dark skin" accompaning tropical limb proportions is in fact ecological principal. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as other tropical African populations, which means that they would have had a skin tone within the great range of that seen within tropically adapted populations. How dark, we don't know?

    Badarians and Early Dynastic Egyptians did not possess "tropical limbs" they had short tibia (1) as per Zakrzewski (2003) in relation to the femur which indicates cold adaptation, thus only later MK sample from Gebelein possessed this Nilotic form - she states this Gebelein population became "increasingly African" and that (2) the EPD sample at Gebelein was significantly biologically distant to the MK Nubian sample.

    (1) "Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length."

    (2) "the sample studied originates from Gebelein in Upper Egypt. Interestingly, the only other sample deriving from Gebelein, an EPD sample, was found to be significantly biologically distant to the MK sample. This result suggests that there is no simple biological population continuity at Gebelein. Stele indicate that Nubian mercenaries lived, married, died, and were buried at this site over the MK period (Fischer, 1961).


    And this goes a great length in explaining why the Egyptians refused to depict themselves as a "tropical" people yet were consistent in depicting Nubians to the south as such.


    CONT.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    03-02-12
    Posts
    22


    Ethnic group
    Mediterranean
    Country: United States



    FROM CONT.

    Recent studies confirm that the melanin content in ancient Egyptians mummies was the same as that of tropical African populations:

    Not so fast.

    “There are the same number of melanocytes [pigment-forming cells] to be found in both Negroid and Caucasian skin.” (“Atlas of Clinical Dermatology” Dr. Anthony du Vivier 1986, page 23)

    “Pigmentation of the skin is determined at cellular level. Although there may be some variation in the number of melanocytes between races, the difference is not striking... all persons have the same total number of melanocytes.” (“Color Atlas Of Melanocytic Lesioins of the Skin”2007 Soyer, Argenziano, Hofmann-Wellenhof


    “Only about 10% of the cells in the basal layer are melanocytes…that specialize in making a pigment protein called melanin, which they package into little sacks that can be transferred to nearby basal epithelial cells…In response to sunlight, melanocytes produce more melanin…That’s why we tan. All normal humans have melanocytes in their skin, and oddly enough, dark-skinned people have roughly the same number of melanocytes as Caucasians.” (“How Cancer Works”2004 Sompayrac)


    “Light-skinned individuals may generate considerable melanin, with continued exposure to sunlight (and so tan). ” (“The New Encyclopædia Britannic”, Volume 18‎ - Page 845 1993)


    Afrocentrics also deny the existance of other Caucasoid lineages in Egypt:

    "Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe..." Maca-Meyer et al; 2001

    "Attested presence of Caucasian people in northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times..."Maca-Meyer et al; 2003

    "The expansion of Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages" Maca-Meyer et al; 2003

    "The Nile River delta population is mainly Caucasian in origin" Herrera et al; 2004

    "North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes." Henn et al; 2012

    "the M1 and U6 haplogroups, originated simultaneously in western Asia... and spread together with modern humans into northern Africa... These early populations may represent the root-stock of the early settlers/inhabitants of the Eastern Sahara who were subsequently to people the Nile Valley, and build one of the first organized civilized states – the Egyptian pharaonic Empire. (Aubry et al; 2008)


    All studies are in agreement, it's Afrocentrics that show a complete lack in basic comprehension and reading.

    “We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published.... These people were Caucasian." (” 1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al) says it all, really.



    What color do Pygmies and Melanesians have? These are who this study groups the ancient Egyptians with. Also the fact that there are other studies in which African Americans cluster exactly within that same tropical African grouping infers that it depends on which samples of African Americans are used (as the amount of non African admixture varies greatly amongst this self identified group):
    N.E. Africans (Egyptians) aren't Pygmies and Melanesians aren't even Africans, which shows how faulty that study is.

    "we found that ancient Egyptians are **significantly different from US Blacks**, although still closer to Blacks than to Whites."

    That study? "significantly different" doesn't help your case if they're supposed to be the same. All the studies indicate biological relatedness to Eurasians and Europeans and insisting Northeast Africans are negroid when they are Caucasoid and cluster with Caucasians is ridiculous.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    Your entire premise hinges on m-35 being of Sub Saharan - or what you're trying to imply - negroid origin, and it isn't the case, at all.
    First of all, the origins and migration of M-35 is just one of my lines of evidence confirming the more southerly African origins of ancient Egypt. This is supported not only by mainstream (and pretty common sense) genetic evidence, but even coinciding with lingustic evidence as Christphoer Ehret's recent study details:



    The genetic data appear to be consistent with the archaeological and linguistic data indicative of extensive population interactions between North African and Middle Eastern populations. A recent NRY study explores the distribution of haplogroups in a sample of African, Middle Eastern, and European males (38). Whereas a subclade of haplogroup E (M35) appears to have arisen in eastern Africa over 20 kya and subsequently spread to the Middle East and Europe, haplogroup J (M267) appears to have arisen in the Middle East over 20 kya and subsequently spread into northern Africa (38). A recent study of genomewide autosomal microsatellite markers reports that Middle Eastern and African samples share the highest number of alleles that are also absent in other non-African samples, consistent with bidirectional gene flow (1). In addition, a recent study of domestic goat mtDNA and NRY variation reports similar findings as well as evidence of trade along the Strait of Gibraltar (39). The combined archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data, therefore, suggest bidirectional migration of peoples between northern Africa and the Levant for at least the past ∼14 ky.

    Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East
    Here is the map from Luis 2004 which explains in detail the origins and spread of the ancestral clade to the ancient Egyptians:



    The single biggest problem with the Henn study, is that the author only investigated one way gene flow from the Levant into Northern Africa and never investigated the opposite, which Henn actually admitted in an email. The evidence of an out of Africa migration has been detailed by the single largest genetic study of Africans to this date Tishkoff 2009.:

    Not to mention the very patchy sampling:


    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post

    "North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes." Henn et al; 2012
    Make no mistake that there now a biological distinction between some North African populations and the other populations further south, but this study does not negate the fact that the population origins Northern Africa lie rooted firmly within Sub Saharan Africa as detailed by Frigi et al. 2010:

    "Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 years BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa."

    -- Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations
    Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4)

    Now while the segment of the study above is pertaining to the vast North African region, Frigi also makes a specific statement in regards to the peopling of the Nile Valley:

    Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum, with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001).
    The conclusions that you are trying to reach from the Henn study, are simply not supported by linguistic, archaeological, skeletal or what most genetic studies have concluded about the peopling of the Nile Valley.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    And your listed source: S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 mentions nothing in support of your argument concerning m-35.
    The point of me posting Keita's conclusions was to show what the general affinity (in terms of phenotype) was with the ancient Egyptians. The affinities were with ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans and modern Horn Africans all of which are more southerly tropically adapted Northeast African populations whom are most commonly recognized by society as "black". In summary of that specific quote the ancient Egyptians displayed a phenotype most similar to that of black African populations to the south.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    So this is why Kerma shows affinities with Egyptians, the Kerma population *was* biologically Egyptian, hence the similarities with Egyptians. Goode/Collett made the distinction between Kerma and "neighboring Nubian settlements" - that is what makes them "closer" than the "other" populations, also noting there was some gene flow into the Nubian population by a continuous Egyptian occupation deep within Nubia.
    You are undermining the essential fact that these indigneous Nile Valley populations were of a cominbation of Nilotic and Afrasian African communities as archaeology and their own skeletal morphologies cosistently reflect this. In other words the distinction between Upper Egyptians and Nubians was for the most part nonexistant. That being said irregardless to the bi-directional geneflow around the Upper Nile region, Kerma is the oldest of the two civilizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    No, they don't. *WHICH* "more southerly northeast African populations"?
    Seriously here is a great article by Ehret which will allow you to brush up on the true peopling of the Nile Valley and Valley:



    Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

    The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.

    A new religion came with them as well. Its central tenet explains the often localized origins of later Egyptian gods: the earliest Afrasians were, properly speaking, neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. Instead, each local community, comprising a clan or a group of related clans, had its own distinct deity and centered its religious observances on that deity. This belief system persists today among several Afrasian peoples of far southwest Ethiopia. And as Biblical scholars have shown, Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews, an Afrasian people of the Semitic group, was originally also such a deity. The connection of many of Egypt's predynastic gods to particular localities is surely a modified version of this early Afrasian belief. Political unification in the late fourth millennium brought the Egyptian deities together in a new polytheistic system. But their local origins remain amply apparent in the records that have come down to us.

    During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia, the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period.

    One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.

    One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.

    Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.

    But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)

    Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.

    From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.

    One key feature of classical Egyptian political culture, usually assumed to have begun in Egypt, also shows strong links to the southern influences of this period. We refer here to a particular kind of sacral chiefship that entailed, in its earliest versions, the sending of servants into the afterlife along with the deceased chief. The deep roots and wide occurrence of this custom among peoples who spoke Eastern Sahelian languages strongly imply that sacral chiefship began not as a specifically Egyptian invention, but instead as a widely shared development of the Middle Nile Culture Area.

    After about 3500 B.C., however, Egypt would have started to take on a new role vis-a-vis the Middle Nile region, simply because of its greater concentration of population. Growing pressures on land and resources soon enhanced and transformed the political powers of sacral chiefs. Unification followed, and the local deities of predynastic times became gods in a new polytheism, while sacral chiefs gave way to a divine king. At the same time, Egypt passed from the wings to center stage in the unfolding human drama of northeastern Africa.

    A Note on the Use of Linguistic Evidence for History

    Languages provide a powerful set of tools for probing the cultural history of the peoples who spoke them. Determining the relationships between particular languages, such as the languages of the Afrasian or the Nilo-Saharan family, gives us an outline history of the societies that spoke those languages in the past. And because each word in a language has its own individual history, the vocabulary of every language forms a huge archive of documents. If we can trace a particular word back to the common ancestor language of a language family, then we know that the item of culture connoted by the word was known to the people who spoke the ancestral tongue. If the word underwent a meaning change between then and now, a corresponding change must have taken place in the cultural idea or practice referred to by the word. In contrast, if a word was borrowed from another language, it attests to a thing or development that passed from the one culture to the other. The English borrowing, for example, of castle, duke, parliament, and many other political and legal terms from Old Norman French are evidence of a Norman period of rule in England, a fact confirmed by documents.


    References Cited:

    Ehret, Christopher, Nilo-Saharans and the Saharo-Sahelian Neolithic. In African Archaeology: Food, Metals and Towns. T. Shaw, P Sinclair, B. Andah, and A. Okpoko, eds. pp. 104-125. London: Routledge. 1993

    Ehret, Christopher, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone Consonants, and Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Berkeley. 1995

    Wendorf, F., et al., Saharan Exploitation of Plants 8000 Years B.P. Nature 359:721-724. 1982

    Wendorf, F., R. Schild, and A. Close, eds. Cattle-Keepers of the Eastern Sahara. Dallas: Southern Methodist University, Department of Anthropology. 1984
    That "local Northeast African ancestry" shows no affinity to Sub Saharan negroids as stated above by Godde and below by numerous other papers:
    Wrong again:


    Ricaut 2008

    Now before you run to Mathilda's interpretations of this study I'd advise you to read the text on your own, because it'll swing right back and hit you in the balls.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    "Ancient Egyptians had simple, mass reduced teeth. This contrasts with the dental pattern of Sub-Saharan Africans who had (Irish, 2000) massive complex teeth.”


    You ignore the recent fact that the forces of evolution have determined dental-cranial morphology.

    Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective.

    Rose JC, Roblee RD.

    Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 Jun;30(5):292-300.

    The study of ancient Egyptian skeletons from Amarna, Egypt reveals extensive tooth wear but very little dental crowding, unlike in modern Americans. In the early 20th century, Percy Raymond Begg focused his research on extreme tooth wear coincident with traditional diets to justify teeth removal during orthodontic treatment. Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and the Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face, including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture, but without any increase in the frequency of dental crowding and malocclusion. For thousands of years, facial and dental reduction stayed in step, more or less. These analyses suggest it was not the reduction in tooth wear that increased crowding and malocclusion, but rather the tremendous reduction in the forces of mastication, which produced this extreme tooth wear and the subsequent reduced jaw involvement. Thus, as modern food preparation techniques spread throughout the world during the 19th century, so did dental crowding. This research provides support for the development of orthodontic therapies that increase jaw dimensions rather than the use of tooth removal to relieve crowding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    Badarians and Early Dynastic Egyptians did not possess "tropical limbs" they had short tibia (1) as per Zakrzewski (2003) in relation to the femur which indicates cold adaptation, thus only later MK sample from Gebelein possessed this Nilotic form
    Are you serious?

    "Limb ratios are of interest because of limb ratios' general relationship to climate per Allen's rule.
    Mammals (including Homo sapiens sapiens) tend to have shorter distal members of the extremities in colder
    climates; this is viewed as being adaptive. Hence the shin (tibia)/thigh (femur) index in Europeans would on
    the average be expected to differ from an equatorial population. Indeed, this is one line of evidence used to
    support the idea that at least some, if not most, Upper Paleolithic (anatomically modern) 'Europeans" were immigrants from warmer areas (Trinkhaus 1981). Of course variation is expected in any region or population.

    Trinkhaus (1981) provides upper and lower extremity distal/proximal member ratios for numerous populations, including a predynastic Egyptian and Mediterranean European series.
    The predynastic Egyptian values plotted near tropical Africans, not Mediterranean Europeans."

    --S. Keita, (1993). Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships. History in Africa. Vol. 20, (1993), pp. 129-154
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    (1) "Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length."
    followed directly by:

    "Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    And this goes a great length in explaining why the Egyptians refused to depict themselves as a "tropical" people yet were consistent in depicting Nubians to the south as such.
    951034ef730b.jpg

    egypt-asiatic-conquer.jpg

    I see reddish Brown Tut and reddish Brown and black Nubians. Now compare that to reddish brown Ramses and white Libyans

  12. #12
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    Not so fast.
    Nope, the Eurocentric shenanigans ended with this one:

    "During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. .. Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
    --(A-M Mekota and M Vermehren. (2005) Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues. Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pages 7-13
    "Newly developed methods" were used to determine the skin color of these Egyptian mummies and they all come out to be black like the Negroids who we all know that they came from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    "the M1 and U6 haplogroups, originated simultaneously in western Asia... and spread together with modern humans into northern Africa... These early populations may represent the root-stock of the early settlers/inhabitants of the Eastern Sahara who were subsequently to people the Nile Valley, and build one of the first organized civilized states – the Egyptian pharaonic Empire. (Aubry et al; 2008)
    Nope sorry most studies associate M1 with East Africans (because that's where it origianted):

    "The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated.. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."
    -- Coudray et al. (2008). The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations. Annals of Human Genetics. Volume 73 Issue 2, Pages 196 - 214
    or

    “..the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards.“ -- Petraglia, M and Rose, J (2010). The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    N.E. Africans (Egyptians) aren't Pygmies and Melanesians aren't even Africans, which shows how faulty that study is.
    The study is plotting the populations according to their limb proportions. The ancient Egyptians being the tropically adapted dark skinned African populations that they were, grouped with other tropically adapted dark skinned populations (including African Americans):

    sbrfrk.png

    Now let brace explain what ecological principal indicates based on this fact:

    "In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics." (-- C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")
    Sorry about your luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    "we found that ancient Egyptians are **significantly different from US Blacks**, although still closer to Blacks than to Whites."
    As I've explained the sampling of highly variable African Americans is at issue with these comparisons. Some group right next to tropical Africans and some group a little distantly. In the analysis below they used the "Negro" equation to describe the ancient Egyptian limb proportions.

    "It can be seen that all the pharonic values, including those of 'Smakhare', lie much closer to the negro curve than to the white curve.Since stature equations only work satisfactorily in the individuals to whom they have applied have similar proportions to the population group from which they are derived, this provides justification for using negro equations for estimating stature from single bones of the New Kingdom pharoahs, renforcing the previous findings of Robins (1983). Furthermore, the Troller and Gleser white equations for the femur, tibia and humerus yield stature values that have a much wider spread than those from negro equations with mean values that are unacceptably large."

    --Robins and Schute. The Physical Proportions and Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs," Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465
    or

    "Estimates of living stature, based on X-ray measurements applied to the Trotter & Gleser (1958) negro equations for the femur, tibia and humerus, have been made for ancient Egyptian kings belonging to the 18th and 19th dynasties. The corresponding equations for whites give values for stature that are unsatisfactorily high. The view that Thutmose III was excessively short is proved to be a myth. It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics, in that the distal segments were relatively long in comparison with the proximal segments. An exception was Ramesses II, who appears to have had short legs below the knees."
    --Robins and Schute. The Physical Proportions and Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs," Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465
    yegyptjD.jpg

    Makes sense to me

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses II View Post
    That study? "significantly different" doesn't help your case if they're supposed to be the same. All the studies indicate biological relatedness to Eurasians and Europeans and insisting Northeast Africans are negroid when they are Caucasoid and cluster with Caucasians is ridiculous.
    Another not job insisting on saying that a parent population really has the affinities of it's descendants (rather than visa versa....logically):

    "What would account for this range of resemblances- infraspecific convergence, parallelism, admixture, chance or all of these? It is perhaps best to consider these findings as reflective primarily of an indigenous northeast African biological evolutionary history and diversity. Hiernaux (1975) reports that the range of values in selected metric units from populations in the northeast quadrant of Africa collectively largely overlaps the range found in the world. Given that this region may be the place from which modern humans left Africa, its people may have retained an overall more generalized craniometric pattern whose individual variants for selected variables may resemble a range of centroid values for non-African population values."
    -- S.O.Y. Keita, "On Meriotic Nubian Crania Fordisc 2.0, and Human Biological History."
    Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007
    or even Brace

    "An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years."(-- C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")
    Last edited by Taharqa; 05-02-12 at 01:41.

  13. #13
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Great discussion guys, but please have respect for each other, we're all friends here.

    Arrogant arguments like these are not helping anyone:
    who we all know that they came from.
    (and pretty common sense)
    I'd advise you to read the text on your own, because it'll swing right back and hit you in the balls.
    One other advise, keep your posts shorter to the point, or concentrate on one issue. Writing posts that need half hour study won't be read by many killing interesting discussion.

    On subject:
    Can we agree on mixed racial origin of ancient Egypt? The paintings on walls are very precis of showing different colors and characteristics of Egyptians. I don't thing there should be much of argument even without genetic data.
    Now, when it comes to different populations, ethnic groups, classes or royal lines, it's another story.

    You can find interesting parallels in today's world. How can we tell if population of Brazil is Ero-asiatic, or African in origin?
    India is even more exciting example of population diversity, languages and casts.
    Why would Egyptians have a licence on population and language homogeneity, especially considering their location.
    Last edited by LeBrok; 04-02-12 at 09:38.

  14. #14
    Regular Member SekhemreKhutawy's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-01-12
    Location
    Louisiana
    Age
    32
    Posts
    11


    Ethnic group
    Greek-Cypriot
    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Taharqa View Post
    The fact that you fail to take into consideration is that M78 is a downstream mutation of M-35 which originated in Sub Saharan East Africa. Stating that the reason for modern Northeast populations to the south of Egypt having consistently been found to overlap with the early ancient Egyptians is due to the noted back migration above is equally faulty. It is not just modern Horn African populations whom share overlapping affinities with the ancient Egyptians, but also ancient populations within that same generalized region also did:



    Perhaps one of the main facts that you are undermining is that the populations which has been consistently noted to have been "biologically essentially the same" (Keita, 93) to the ancient Egyptians were the ancient Nubians, and both populations share a general primary affinity with underlined populations listed above (Northeast Africans). This finding has been confirmed by many much more recent studies including Godde 2009:



    The fact that the Nubia predates Egypt negates your claim that the affinity towards more southerly northeast African populations is due to a back migration from Egypt.



    Keita then followed that exact statement with "of local Northeast african ancestry":



    You seem to be unaware of the fact that "dark skin" accompaning tropical limb proportions is in fact ecological principal. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as other tropical African populations, which means that they would have had a skin tone within the great range of that seen within tropically adapted populations. How dark, we don't know?



    What color do Pygmies and Melanesians have? These are who this study groups the ancient Egyptians with. Also the fact that there are other studies in which African Americans cluster exactly within that same tropical African grouping infers that it depends on which samples of African Americans are used (as the amount of non African admixture varies greatly amongst this self identified group):



    Most of North Africa does not lie within the tropics. With that being said the ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted. This means that the ancient Egyptians evolved within tropical Africa, which also means that they had "dark skin". Recent studies confirm that the melanin content in ancient Egyptians mummies was the same as that of tropical African populations:



    Once I get past my first 10 post I will be allowed to accompany my post and quotes with the plots and maps from their actual studies.
    So what that E-M35 originated in Eastern Africa? All haplogroups have ancestry in Eastern Africa, as this is the region from which humans dispersed to different areas of the world. The fact is that when the people spread in different directions, they, like their genetics, diversified. So bringing up that M78 is a downstream mutation means nothing, really. LOL @ you. The very study you post from Keita even says "show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa." The ancient similarities being with those people in the upper Northeast African region--Nubians/Kushites and Saharans...who have common ancestry with the Nile Valley people in parent Afro-Asiatic stocks. Go figure, except those in the Nubian region became admixed with Nilotic peoples...who were very different from Egyptians phenotypically...as represented in their art.

    As for your copy-and-paste of K. Godde's study:

    "In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian)."

    Which would make one wonder about the level of phenotypical influence these Nubians exhibited from their Egyptian/North African and Nilotic ancestries, or if they were simply Egyptians, or Nubians that didn't mix with Nilotes yet...which is also relative to this part you highlighted:

    "The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians."
    -------------------------------------
    "Both mtDNA (Krings et al., 1999) and Y-Chromosome data (Hassan et al., 2008; Keita, 2005; Lucotte and Mercier, 2003) indicate that migrations, usually bidirectional, occurred along the Nile. Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence."

    And the time periods in which these admixed or Nilotic Nubians migrated to Egypt were when? How big were these Nubian movements and how much did they contribute in terms of genetics to the Egyptian population in each movement?

    "On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations...
    …The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions.”


    I’m assuming that when he says Southern Africa, he merely means southerly Africans that are geographically proximate. Sure, there was an artistic relation, and even if the artistic culture came from that region, it could, without proof stating otherwise, mean that there was a cultural continuity in the Nile Valley region with the Afro-Asiatic peoples of that region before the division into Egyptians and mixed/Nilotic Nubians. Also, the affiliation with these “southerly Africans” has already been covered. As for the Bantu-speaking Teita…do you have a complete genetic profile on them?

    “For example, we found E-M35* and E-M78 chromosomes in Bantu-speaking populations from Kenya (14.3%) but not in those living in central Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002), the area in which the Bantu expansion originated (Vansina 1984). In agreement with mtDNA data (Salas et al. 2002), this finding suggests a relevant contribution of eastern African peoples to the gene pool of the eastern Bantu.”
    Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa
    F. Cruciani 2004

    “Taharqa” quotes: “Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV.”

    And what exactly are these “Negroid” traits? Is this term being used to refer to black people in general including East Africans with their different craniofacial type? Or Negroid as in black people with a craniofacial type typical of, say, a Bantu person? Is prognathism one of those traits? I mean, I wouldn’t doubt that was present in ancestral East African peoples. But could this not be a retention of archaic traits? As for later Egyptian skulls being different… might this not be simple regional variation within Egypt? After all, they (Lower Egyptians) were different from Upper Egyptians from formative times…but not so different as to be considered non-African, per Zakrzewski. And even though Barry Kemp says this about late dynastic Lower Egyptians:


    "In a database of human cranial variation worldwide (CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc. The original source is the largest series of skulls from Egypt (1,500) collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza and dating from the 26th to the 30th Dynasties...."

    ….the 26-30th dynasty Egyptians do not exhibit biological differentiation according to Joel Irish’s 2006 dental study:

    "Specifically, an inspection of MMD
    values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance
    between samples from the first and second halves of this
    almost 3,000-year-long period
    . For example, phenetic distances between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11–12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19thþ Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time."


    “Taharqa” posts: “The fact that the Nubia predates Egypt negates your claim that the affinity towards more southerly northeast African populations is due to a back migration from Egypt.”

    Sure, there were “cultures” that existed in the historic Nubian regions long before predynastic Egypt, and there was a biologically and culturally continuous Afro-Asiatic population extending in Northeast Africa, extending from Egypt and into Sudan. But how this is supposed to negate the genetic imprint on and coincidental affinity to modern Horn Africans by upper Northeast Africans, I’m not sure.

    “Taharqa” posts: “Keita then followed that exact statement with "of local Northeast african ancestry.”

    So what? I’ve always maintained they were Northeast Africans too.

    “Taharqa” posts: “You seem to be unaware of the fact that "dark skin" accompaning tropical limb proportions is in fact ecological principal. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as other tropical African populations, which means that they would have had a skin tone within the great range of that seen within tropically adapted populations. How dark, we don't know?”

    “What color do Pygmies and Melanesians have? These are who this study groups the ancient Egyptians with. Also the fact that there are other studies in which African Americans cluster exactly within that same tropical African grouping infers that it depends on which samples of African Americans are used (as the amount of non African admixture varies greatly amongst this self identified group):”

    They are closer to tropical populations and African Americans than they are to cold adapted populations. Allen’s Rule, which can be applied to both humans and animals, demonstrates that desert animals tend to have longer appendages, which serve the function of dissipating heat. So in a desert climate on the upper fringe of the tropics, who are you to say that they were the same skin tone as black Africans, especially when African Americans are significantly different…as well as Nilotic peoples. Zakrzewski (2003) noted an increase in Nilotic body plan in the Middle Kingdom Gebelin sample, contrasted with earlier Egyptians:


    "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."

    On top of that, as I’ve shown in an earlier post… DH Temple supports the idea that long limbs can occur in low-latitude temperate environments, along with tropical environments.

    Taharqa: “Recent studies confirm that the melanin content in ancient Egyptians mummies was the same as that of tropical African populations:”

    Again, what do they mean by Negroid origin? Based on what? A craniofacial similarity with Nilotes and Bantus? A term used to refer to black Africans in general, even those of the East African type? Besides, these are New Kingdom mummies the study is talking about, so it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some such people in Thebes.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    So what that E-M35 originated in Eastern Africa? All haplogroups have ancestry in Eastern Africa, as this is the region from which humans dispersed to different areas of the world.
    That is a red herring to distract from the main contention that the original population source for the Nile Valley is Haplogroup E which originated in Sub Saharan East Africa. Irregardless of where all non African haplogroups can ultimately trace their origins, the signature marker for the Nile Valley is one which most closely ties it to Sub Saharan African populations (the Horn).

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    The very study you post from Keita even says "show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa."
    Again what's your point? You are completely ignoring the fact that Keita list the ancient populations from the same Northeast African region, as also being closely related to the ancient Egyptians. Sub Saharan East Africa was a major population source for the Nile Valley, as displayed perfectly clearly by everything from linguistics, genetics, archaeology and culture. This would logically only mean that modern groups in the Horn of Africa are a representative of what proto-Egyptians generally looked like. The most mind boggling contradiction of your theory that the early ancient Egyptians were "anything but black African", is that you are even acknowleding the proven fact that they shared primary biological affinities with ancient and modern black Africans and not with their modern descendants in Egypt who are highly admixed with non Africans. Your entire premise is self defeating.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    The ancient similarities being with those people in the upper Northeast African region--Nubians/Kushites and Saharans...who have common ancestry with the Nile Valley people in parent Afro-Asiatic stocks.
    The ancient Saharans were Nilotic Africans as attested by Ehret's article above. These Nilotic cattle herders tribes from the ancient Sahara were the second wave of people who intermixed with the Afrasian communities who initially settled on the Nile:

    Dinka_Legendary_Cattle_Keepers_1.800w_600h.jpg


    "a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 1988). If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (1998), "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild.
    This is what Keita means when he states that the heterogenous ancestry of Egypt was already in place during Pre-Dynastic times and he follows by stating there is no evidence to suggest that Egypt's origins were anything but of local Northeast African ancestry.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    Go figure, except those in the Nubian region became admixed with Nilotic peoples...who were very different from Egyptians phenotypically...as represented in their art.
    The fact that the ancient Nubians spoke a Nilo Saharan language I would tend to agree that they were likely more influenced by the second wave of settlement on the Nile than those in parts of Egypt. Then again Keita and other scholars have noted that the cultural and biological affinties of the early Lower Egyptian populations tied them more towards the Nilotic populations of the ancient Sahara than to anywhere else:

    "Over the last two decades, numerous contemporary (Khartoum Neolithic) sites and cemeteries have been excavated in the Central Sudan.. The most striking point to emerge is the overall similarity of early neolithic developments inhabitation, exchange, material culture and mortuary customs in the Khartoum region to those underway at the same time in the Egyptian Nile Valley, far to the north." (Wengrow, David (2003) "Landscapes of Knowledge, Idioms of Power: The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization Reconsidered," in Ancient Egypt in Africa, David O'Connor and Andrew Reid, eds. Ancient Egypt in Africa. London: University College London Press, 2003, pp. 119-137)
    Just food for thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    Which would make one wonder about the level of phenotypical influence these Nubians exhibited from their Egyptian/North African and Nilotic ancestries, or if they were simply Egyptians, or Nubians that didn't mix with Nilotes yet...which is also relative to this part you highlighted:
    You are running a little too far ahead of yourself from that interpretation by morett. The ancient Egyptians have also been postulated to have been the results of migrants from Nubia:

    "Some have argued that various early Egyptians like the Badarians probably migrated northward from Nubia, while others see a wide-ranging movement of peoples across the breadth of the Sahara before the onset of desiccation. Whatever may be the origins of any particular people or civilization, however, it seems reasonably certain that the predynastic communities of the Nile valley were essentially indigenous in culture, drawing little inspiration from sources outside the continent during the several centuries directly preceding the onset of historical times..." (Robert July, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, p. 60-61)
    and

    "Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
    As I've stated irregardless of bi-directional geneflow on the Nile Valley, the facts remains that Kerma is the oldest civilization on the Nile and both Egyptians and Nubians were of the same mixture of tropical African ancestry.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    And the time periods in which these admixed or Nilotic Nubians migrated to Egypt were when? How big were these Nubian movements and how much did they contribute in terms of genetics to the Egyptian population in each movement?
    The Nilotic ancestry came into the Nile Valley between 10,000-6,000 BC. They mixed with the already in place Afrasian communities. The Nilotic ancestry was substantial enough to be major genetic characteristic of modern Coptic descedants:

    "The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt.
    The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology."Source Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008.)
    This finding runs parralel with lingustic, archaeolgocial, and skeletal data which confirms that a substantial migration of Nilotes from the ancient Sahara took place during Pre-Dynastic times.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    Sure, there was an artistic relation, and even if the artistic culture came from that region, it could, without proof stating otherwise, mean that there was a cultural continuity in the Nile Valley region with the Afro-Asiatic peoples of that region before the division into Egyptians and mixed/Nilotic Nubians.
    This was based primarily on archaeological evidence, rather than a biological. None the less this postulation has been backed by a 2012 genetic analysis of the Amarna period pharaohs (the same markers extracted from study publicized by Zahi Hawass in 2010), which found their primary genetic affinity to be with African populations from the Great Lakes region, southern Africa and Western Africa.

    dnatribes.jpg

    Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of Africa. These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE.

    Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies. If new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.
    The Great Lakes region is interestingly enough was the same region which the Egyptians stated that the came from in the Hunefer papyrus. As far as the West Africa's affinty is concerned, one fact that facts it is that King Tut was actually confirmed to have died from sickle cell anemia which ultimately has it's origins in West Africa:

    overtime.gif

    Just food for thought

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    Also, the affiliation with these “southerly Africans” has already been covered. As for the Bantu-speaking Teita…do you have a complete genetic profile on them?
    Nope, it would be interesting though.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    And what exactly are these “Negroid” traits? Is this term being used to refer to black people in general including East Africans with their different craniofacial type?.....Is prognathism one of those traits? I mean, I wouldn’t doubt that was present in ancestral East African peoples.
    That's the problem with racial classification in biology, the definition varries from scholar to scholar. In this case the "Negroid traits" noted by this early 20th century anthropologist was also noted in 2007 by

    "As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). (Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
    With that being said it makes no sense on your part to assert that a migration from Egypt into the south, made these populations the way that they are now. The populations of Northeast Africa have always had their own set of indingenous traits which characterizes them. Rather or not those traits are lumped in as "Caucasoid" of "Negroid" does not change who those people are, where they originate and what they look like. That being said the ancient Egyptians generally most closely resembled both ancient and modern populations from within that same region.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    Or Negroid as in black people with a craniofacial type typical of, say, a Bantu person?
    The indigenous craniofacial types of African populations is the most diverse in the world. The narrow featured Africans across the sub continent (central, west or east) are just as African as the broad featured populations. Also what is with the fascination of bringing "Bantu" African populations into this conversation when they need not apply? This discussion is centered around Nilotic and Afrasian speaking African communities. Please stop trying to polarize what is considered "black" as it is dishonest on your part and you that. Not to mention the fundamental fact that Bantu is a LANGUAGE family, NOT a set of physical traits.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    As for later Egyptian skulls being different… might this not be simple regional variation within Egypt? After all, they (Lower Egyptians) were different from Upper Egyptians from formative times
    Nope. The modern populations of both Upper and Lower Egypt are much more distant from the early populations, than are ancient Nubian and recent/modern Horn African populations. Geneflow from the Mediterranean has been listed as the primary culprit for this biological distinction over time:


    dendrogram2.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    ….the 26-30th dynasty Egyptians do not exhibit biological differentiation according to Joel Irish’s 2006 dental study:
    That is based on dental traits, in an attempt to determine continuity between ancient and modern populations, which is not the same as determining the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians. That is why in Zakreski's 2007 study she noted the findings of continuity in Irish's 2006 study but that did not negate the fact that their was an alteration of biological affinities, due to an influx of foreign populations:

    Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

    Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990).

    -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
    Also Zakrzewski criticized Howell's database for it's reliance of those same late period Northern Egyptian samples, because they were not "typical" of the Egyptian series:

    Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

    Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

    The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

    The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. –Zakrewski (2004) “Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania.”
    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    Sure, there were “cultures” that existed in the historic Nubian regions long before predynastic Egypt, and there was a biologically and culturally continuous Afro-Asiatic population extending in Northeast Africa, extending from Egypt and into Sudan. But how this is supposed to negate the genetic imprint on and coincidental affinity to modern Horn Africans by upper Northeast Africans, I’m not sure.
    You are essentially suggesting that those pre-existing (and modern) populations in more southerly regions of Northeast Africa got their biological affinities from the backmigration from Egypt. While it's obvious that this did occur, you have yet to even give a date for this back migration into the Horn. I've read a passage on one website in which a Greek historian notes that during Egyptian antiquity a quarter million rebellious Egyptian men migrated south to settle with the Cushites. Could this possibly be the back migration that we know occurred?

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    So what? I’ve always maintained they were Northeast Africans too.
    From what I'm getting from your post you are maintaining that Egypt was it's own population source and ultimately that of more southerly northeast African populations, which is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    So in a desert climate on the upper fringe of the tropics, who are you to say that they were the same skin tone as black Africans
    First of all it is ecological principal that tropically adapted populations have dark skin color in relation to non tropically adapted populations. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as populations whom in Africa are regarded as "black" and Southeast Asian populations whom have been previously regarded as "Negro" transplants because of their physical appearance. Why would the ancient Egyptians somehow magically defy ecological principal and not have dark skin within the range of all the other populations whom they group with?

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    especially when African Americans are significantly different
    So in other words you are going to completely ignore the plotting graph from the recent study in my last post which groups African Americans within that same tropically adapted cluster as Egyptians, Pygmies and Melenasians? The explanation for why some African American samples might varry in this respect was explained in that same post.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    …as well as Nilotic peoples. Zakrzewski (2003) noted an increase in Nilotic body plan in the Middle Kingdom Gebelin sample, contrasted with earlier Egyptians:
    What is your point? The ancient Egyptians were more tropically adapted than modern West African populations, as noted as the reasoning for them being referred to as "Super Negroid" in limb proportions. Nilotes are more tropically adapted (perhaps the most tropically adapted people on Earth) than West Africans, and the reason for the ancient Egyptians having a more tropically adapted ratio than West Africans is likely do to their signifigant Nilotic ancestry on top of that which came from the Horn. Are we now suspose to consider West African non black for that fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    On top of that, as I’ve shown in an earlier post… DH Temple supports the idea that long limbs can occur in low-latitude temperate environments, along with tropical environments.
    Just I've shown you that tropical limb proportions and dark skin color are paired with one another based on ecological principal. I've also shown you recent melanin analysis in Egyptians mummies which CONFIRMS that these ancient tropically adapated Africans had dark skin like black African populations.

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    Again, what do they mean by Negroid origin? Based on what?
    It means that they were black Africans! They had a craniometric shape that most similar to various black African populations. They had limb proportions like populations across the world who have been or are still deemed black. They share their signature genetic markers and origins with black Africans. Their culture and language came from black Africans. They themselves stated that they came from the south (black Africa). The ancient Greeks attested to the fact that the came from the "Ethiopians" (black Africans to the south). Is this really a reality pill that is too hard to swallow?

    wek3.jpg

    Just about all mainstream evidence indicates that the ancient Egyptians were a mixture of these two types of Africans (Nilote/Ethiopic).

    Quote Originally Posted by SekhemreKhutawy View Post
    Besides, these are New Kingdom mummies the study is talking about, so it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some such people in Thebes.
    Early Egyptian mummies were also tropical Africans:

    "The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results (Keita, 1990). This pattern is seen in both group and unknown analyses. (S. Keita (1992) 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)
    Last edited by Taharqa; 05-02-12 at 16:07.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    Some Egyptian art:

    10y2q3a.jpg2djz1jd.jpg 2mfwwli.jpg 28vtuso.jpg 35374ig.jpg Notice the broad African features of many of these of these pharaohs:
    "There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
    It's clear and conclusive that these ancient Africans were indeed "black". That's not to say that individuals from elsewhere (non African) were not in ancient Egypt, but what is clearly proven is that the populations base of ancient Egypt was of Afrasian and Nilotic (black African) origins.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    In this 1980's documentary on African history by the late historian Basil Davidson, he discusses in detail how many colonial scholars distorted African history and particularly ancient Egypt. He states that all recent evidence confirms that they were black Africans from the south:







    Even to this day (apparent by several posters above) some people absolutely refuse to accept the fact that the Egyptians were originally black Africans, no matter how clear the evidence is that they were.:

    "The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage,including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...

    Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization"
    -- Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28
    The Fitzwilliam Museum now also recognizes the more southerly African origin and cultural connection of ancient Egypt.
    Last edited by Taharqa; 05-02-12 at 13:19.

  18. #18
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    I have to ask, why are so focused on this topic, and don't post about anything else on this forum?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    I actually posted on several topics in this forum if you actually read my post history. Now compare that to another contributor to this thread and you will see that he only tends to post about this topic. On another note and with all due respect, why does that even matter you? Why does it concern you if one particular topic strikes my interest more than others? I'm sure I'm not the only person on this forum who tends to be more focused on a specific topic.

  20. #20
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Taharqa View Post
    I actually posted on several topics in this forum if you actually read my post history. Now compare that to another contributor to this thread and you will see that he only tends to post about this topic. On another note and with all due respect, why does that even matter you? Why does it concern you if one particular topic strikes my interest more than others? I'm sure I'm not the only person on this forum who tends to be more focused on a specific topic.
    Honestly, if somebody keeps posting very large posts successively in a row, without anybody else who gave any kind of feedback in the meantime, it certainly raises eyebrows. I'm not blaming you or anybody else on this forum for having a narrow focus of topics that one is being interested into. As for why it concerns me, it is my duty as a moderator.

    Now, to contribrute to something on this topic, how do you think about the hypothesis (forwarded by Militarev et al.) that the Afrasian (aka Afroasiatic) languages originated in the Near East amongst the first farmer societies, and not in Africa?

  21. #21
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Honestly, if somebody keeps posting very large posts successively in a row, without anybody else who gave any kind of feedback in the meantime
    it certainly raises eyebrows.
    The point of my additional post was just illustrating the academic support for my stance, and confirmation that my interpretations of the studies which I post are in line with mainstream scholars. I would argue that individuals before me who plastered all of those misinterpreted studies in response to someone simply stating that the ancient Egyptians were black and even injecting racist ideas into the topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsesII View Post
    And this goes a great length in explaining why the Egyptians refused to depict themselves as a "tropical" people yet were consistent in depicting Nubians to the south as such.
    should be the only one's who "raises eyebrows", not the one who simply corrects them!

    Now, to contribrute to something on this topic, how do you think about the hypothesis (forwarded by Militarev et al.) that the Afrasian (aka Afroasiatic) languages originated in the Near East amongst the first farmer societies, and not in Africa?
    Below is the lectures that S.O.Y Keita conducted at Manchester University in which he details that such positions of a non African origin for Afro-Asiatic are is "laughable" and those who support it are "hold out" in the extreme minority amongst linguistic scholars:



    In direct response to the assertion that you propose, Keita states "the dates won't work". It's covered within the first four minutes of this segment.

  22. #22
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Taharqa View Post
    The point of my additional post was just illustrating the academic support for my stance, and confirmation that my interpretations of the studies which I post are in line with mainstream scholars. I would argue that individuals before me who plastered all of those misinterpreted studies in response to someone simply stating that the ancient Egyptians were black and even injecting racist ideas into the topic:

    should be the only one's who "raises eyebrows", not the one who simply corrects them!
    My statement wasn't directed exclusively just against you, but you are the one to who already received an informal warning before. Besides that, I commend your interest and your knowledge on this topic.

    Below is the lectures that S.O.Y Keita conducted at Manchester University in which he details that such positions of a non African origin for Afro-Asiatic are is "laughable" and those who support it are "hold out" in the extreme minority amongst linguistic scholars:
    Honestly, I do not find the discussion "laughable" at all, and that it cannot be dismissed so easily. I think that the argument is absolutely valid if one assumes that Afroasiatic might have been a farmer language. It is possible to reconstruct common terms of farming for more than one branch of Afroasiatic. Even if these words are not attested in all branches, that doesn't automatically mean they were not present in other branches of Afroasiatic . Mind you, there are no common number words or family kinship terms for Afroasiatic (which is very much unlike the situation in Indo-European), either. I also personally find the assertation that people cling to the farmer hypothesis for "ideological reasons" just plain stupid. I do agree with Keita though that if one imagines Proto-Afroasiatic as a hunter-gatherer language, then this without a doubt heavily supports an African origin.

    The crucial question though is: how old is Proto-Afroasiatic? While it is the oldest language family that we can unambiguously conceive, it is doubtful that it is vastly in excess of 10,000 years. Otherwise we end up with a serious problem to explain how isolate languages have seemingly no clear relationship with one another, and there must be a point beyond two related languages are no longer recognizable as such. So, the mere question of age, in my opinion, argues in favour of the farmer hypothesis.

    In any case, I must admit this: from my perspective, the whole discussion about the so-called "racial" identity of the ancient Egyptians is quite pointless, but I could see how the discussion could come up in the archaeological or linguistic context.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Honestly, I do not find the discussion "laughable" at all, and that it cannot be dismissed so easily.
    It is "laughable" when you stand it up against that which suggest that it originated in Africa (particularly the Horn). The shear amount of the diversity of the Afro-Asiatic within the African continent (all except one) compared to that which is seen in Asia (Semitic) nullifies a non African origin from jump.

    I think that the argument is absolutely valid if one assumes that Afroasiatic might have been a farmer language. It is possible to reconstruct common terms of farming for more than one branch of Afroasiatic.
    Farming was seen in the Middle East thousands of years prior to it's usage in the Nile Valley. If the farming communities of the Middle East are the originators of the language phylum, then farming would have subsequently been immediately introduced to the African communities as the people migrated into the continent, rather than millenniums passing by before farming was independently created on the continent as it actually did. What could logically explain that gap of this monumental development in an aspect that would become such an integral part of human life? The names of live stock and crops introduced from those Middle Eastern farmers (sheep, goat, barley and oats) would have been Semitic instead the words were Nilotic loan words, which is a testament to those Nilotic communities creating their own indigenous farming system and integrating with the Afrasian communities (from the Horn) during Pre-Dynastic times. This is what Keita means when he states with emphasis "the dates won't work".

    Even if these words are not attested in all branches, that doesn't automatically mean they were not present in other branches of Afroasiatic .
    Which ones, give specific examples please. That's the problem with the arguments of people who cling to this non African origin for Afro-Asiatic. It's like playing connect the dots with someone who has to create many many dots on a diagram where they simply don't exist. Entirely too much speculation and not enough concrete evidence, which again makes this theory laughable when compared to the African origin. Take the parallel of the spread of M35 from East Africa/migration and the origins/dispersal of the language family:

    africanlanguage.jpg
    Ehret
    mm1E1b1bRoute.png
    Luis et al. 2004


    Mind you, there are no common number words or family kinship terms for Afroasiatic (which is very much unlike the situation in Indo-European), either.
    In what ways is that an argument against an African origin for Afro-Asiatic?

    I also personally find the assertation that people cling to the farmer hypothesis for "ideological reasons" just plain stupid.
    I tend to agree with Keita that the people who persistently argue a non African origin do this for support whatever ideological view that they subscribe to. Anytime a theory has to rely on line after line after line of unsupported or very shaky evidence, one must wonder what is their motivation for trying to prove this. Especially when the evidence to the opposite view is as plain as day.

    The crucial question though is: how old is Proto-Afroasiatic?
    The Ehret article above states that the language was originally spoken between 15,000-13,000 BC in region stretching between Nubia and Somalia.

    Otherwise we end up with a serious problem to explain how isolate languages have seemingly no clear relationship with one another, and there must be a point beyond two related languages are no longer recognizable as such. So, the mere question of age, in my opinion, argues in favour of the farmer hypothesis.
    The farmer Hypothesis is simply not supported:

    IN THEIR REVIEW “FARMERS AND THEIR languages: the first expansions” (25 Apr. 2003, p. 597), J. Diamond and P. Bellwood suggest that food production and the Afroasiatic language family were brought simultaneously from the Near East to Africa by demic diffusion, in other words,by a migration of food-producing peoples. In resurrecting this generally abandoned view, the authors misrepresent the views of the late I. M. Diakonoff (1), rely on linguistic reconstructions inapplicable to their claims (2), and fail to engage the five decades of Afroasiatic scholarship that rebutted this idea in the first place. This extensive, well-grounded linguistic research places the Afroasiatic homeland in the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa (3–8) and, when all of Afroasiatic’sbranches are included, strongly indicates a pre–food-producing proto-Afroasiatic economy (1, 7, 8).
    or

    He explicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non–foodproducing vocabulary and links it to pre- Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older.
    Link . Most of the article is just a complete annilation of one linguist reasoning to support a non African origin for Afro-Asiatic".

  24. #24
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Taharqa View Post
    It is "laughable" when you stand it up against that which suggest that it originated in Africa (particularly the Horn). The shear amount of the diversity of the Afro-Asiatic within the African continent (all except one) compared to that which is seen in Asia (Semitic) nullifies a non African origin from jump.

    Farming was seen in the Middle East thousands of years prior to it's usage in the Nile Valley. If the farming communities of the Middle East are the originators of the language phylum, then farming would have subsequently been immediately introduced to the African communities as the people migrated into the continent, rather than millenniums passing by before farming was independently created on the continent as it actually did. What could logically explain that gap of this monumental development in an aspect that would become such an integral part of human life? The names of live stock and crops introduced from those Middle Eastern farmers (sheep, goat, barley and oats) would have been Semitic instead the words were Nilotic loan words, which is a testament to those Nilotic communities creating their own indigenous farming system and integrating with the Afrasian communities (from the Horn) during Pre-Dynastic times. This is what Keita means when he states with emphasis "the dates won't work".

    Which ones, give specific examples please. That's the problem with the arguments of people who cling to this non African origin for Afro-Asiatic. It's like playing connect the dots with someone who has to create many many dots on a diagram where they simply don't exist. Entirely too much speculation and not enough concrete evidence, which again makes this theory laughable when compared to the African origin. Take the parallel of the spread of M35 from East Africa/migration and the origins/dispersal of the language family:


    Ehret

    Luis et al. 2004

    In what ways is that an argument against an African origin for Afro-Asiatic?

    I tend to agree with Keita that the people who persistently argue a non African origin do this for support whatever ideological view that they subscribe to. Anytime a theory has to rely on line after line after line of unsupported or very shaky evidence, one must wonder what is their motivation for trying to prove this. Especially when the evidence to the opposite view is as plain as day.

    The Ehret article above states that the language was originally spoken between 15,000-13,000 BC in region stretching between Nubia and Somalia.

    The farmer Hypothesis is simply not supported:

    or

    Link . The entire article is just a complete annilation of one lingust reasoning to support a non African origin for Afro-Asiatic, by a host of others. Please read it and understand why scholars (as Keita notes) finds the idea "laughable".
    You keep saying "laughable" several times over, but I don't see any solid counter-argument in what you have presented there. First off, regarding the assumption that where a language family is most diverse must be near it's place of origin, I don't necessarily agree with this assumption. It could also be the case that this diversity is the effect of a later diversification. Conversely, regarding the Near East as the Proto-Afrasian homeland, it's absolutely possible that the Near East was later on homogenized by the later spread of the Semitic languages. The real problem I have with the hypothesis that Proto-Afroasiatic is a hunter-gatherer language, in my opinion creates a huge general problem: if it takes the excess of 10,000 or 15,000 years for languages no longer to be recognizable as being related, where does this leave isolate languages (like Basque or Sumerian)? My opinion is thus that it is far more likely that Proto-Afroasiatic was indeed a farmer language, and then, an Eurasian origin of Proto-Afroasiatic is pretty unavoidable. Unless of course, you argue for an origin of agriculture in Africa, which however is non-consistent with what we see in archaeology.

    EDIT: what should be added, there's also a very interesting genetic argument in favour of an Eurasian origin, namely the fact that the Chadic peoples possess the same marker of lactase persistance as Europeans.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Taharqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-01-12
    Posts
    31


    Country: USA - Kentucky



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    First off, regarding the assumption that where a language family is most diverse must be near it's place of origin, I don't necessarily agree with this assumption. It could also be the case that this diversity is the effect of a later diversification.
    Please explain why the Afro-Asiatic languages for 10,000 years would have waited until they migrated into Africa to diversify? It has nothing to show for those millenniums in the Middle East but one branch, which is Semitic. It makes absolutely no sense, which is why scholarly support non African origin for Afro-Asiatic is in the gutter. That simple observation does however support the fact that Semitic is the one of (if the not 'the') the youngest branch of Afro-Asiatic (as detailed by Ehret's map).

    My opinion is thus that it is far more likely that Proto-Afroasiatic was indeed a farmer language, and then, an Eurasian origin of Proto-Afroasiatic is pretty unavoidable. Unless of course, you argue for an origin of agriculture in Africa, which however is non-consistent with what we see in archaeology.
    If you actually took the time to read the article by Ehret or watch the documentary by Basil Davidson above then you would already be aware of the fact that Africans created agriculture and domesticated cattle on their own:
    "Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."
    Source: The Origins of Afroasiatic
    Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood
    Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1680

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Greatest Ancient Egyptian contribution(s) to the world
    By Maciamo in forum History & Civilisations
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 16-07-20, 18:50
  2. new ancient DNA study in LBK
    By secherbernard in forum Neolithic & Chalcolithic
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 04-08-13, 06:41
  3. Ancient Old Prussians
    By zanipolo in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 30-05-13, 19:07
  4. Matching Ancient languages with Ancient tribes
    By zanipolo in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24-07-11, 01:19
  5. Greatest Egyptian contributions to the world
    By Zauriel in forum History & Civilisations
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 13-10-05, 17:53

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •