|
Post by Dienekes on Jul 9, 2005 15:53:38 GMT -5
I was not speaking about the badarian, who were Negroids as I have said that Before, I'm speaking about those who started replacing the Negroids: The Badarians were not Negroid, they were a mixed population with a strong Europoid element. dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000170.html
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jul 9, 2005 15:58:09 GMT -5
I was not speaking about the badarian, who were Negroids as I have said that Before, I'm speaking about those who started replacing the Negroids: The Badarians were not Negroid, they were a mixed population with a strong Europoid element. dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000170.htmlOutdated and flawed, in particular this statement: "In Nubia, according to the analysis of physical anthropology, the original Europoid (Caucasoid) stock of the population was several times overrun by Negroid waves, flowing from the South." There was *NEVER* any original 'Europoid' population in Nubia. Groves and Thorne clearly debunked this notion.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Jul 9, 2005 16:16:15 GMT -5
and I forgot to add this: most of egyptian's E3b is E3b1 (which is of middle eastern origin). and I belive that the rest of E3b has also been brought from the middle east.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jul 9, 2005 16:31:08 GMT -5
and I forgot to add this: most of egyptian's E3b is E3b1 (which is of middle eastern origin).[7quote] E3b1 isn't of Middle Eastern origin, that is incorrect E3b is *RARE* is the Middle East and was brought into the Levant via a migration out of Africa through Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Jul 9, 2005 16:48:00 GMT -5
sorry, I meant E-m123.
I did not say that E3b arose in the middle east, I said it came from the middle east, I belive it's been out of africa through the horn of africa and then back to Africa through egypt.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 9, 2005 19:03:13 GMT -5
When did I say Middle Easterners replaced them? I said migrants from the North[Lower Egyptians] fused with the Upper Egyptian population and modified the population to be less sub-Saharan in morphology, but that the people still exhibited a level of continuity with the original predynastic Egyptians. Indeed, this is exactly what happened. Egypt is an African civilization. No doubt about it in my mind. -Predynastic egyptians were not subsaharans in morphology, they were more or less intermediate but leaning towards Caucasoids: Before the rise of the egyptian civilization the migration north-south has already begun. This is trash, Igu. Predynastic Egyptians were Negroid because the Badarians and Nubians were Negroid. They weren't hybrids. They were black Africans, mostly of the elongated type, I assume (the Aethiopid).
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jul 9, 2005 19:22:12 GMT -5
In school you always see egypt as a middle east mediterranean civilization
I have a hard time taking egypt out of the sumerians, assyrians, persians, phoenicians, babylonians box and putting them somewhere else, doesnt seem correct to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 9, 2005 19:30:16 GMT -5
You're right. Taking it out of that Ancient Near Eastern Civilization peg doesn't seem quite right.
So, I suppose it wouldn't be incorrect to feel that Egypt has some kind of a kinship to the Middle East simply by mere virtue of geography. The Egyptians knew of Assyrians, Sea Peoples, Hyksos, etc. because they had direct contact with these peoples. The Egyptians didn't have direct contact with distant colored folks like West Africans or Bantus or Khoisan, no, but they did have contact with East Africans, the region where the foundations of their civilization sprung. Egyptians are still African because of all the reasons Shomarka Keita stated.
I guess if you wanted to stretch it to make everybody happy, it is easier to just call Egypt collectively both an East African and a Near Eastern civilization.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 10, 2005 4:10:59 GMT -5
Groves and Thorne did not debunk anything to do with Badarians or Naqadans. They only compared various North African remains with European Cro-Magnons and some Nubian remains from Sudan. The study was rather silly. They should have compared North Africans with NW Africans, and the Nubians with Egyptians and NE Africans. Part of the study involved sexing the remains and apparently the Nubian remains were difficult to sex into male and female! The conclusion stated that negroids occupied northern Mali at 6000 BP, at 4000 BCE. It was also stated in the conclusion that " Aridity in the Sahare, however, still held sway; comparately little gene-flow penetrated it, leaving the contemporary Magrebian population fully Cro-Magnon in type." There is no mention about the Nubian remains and the population of Egypt. As I said, studying the remains from Nubia was a waste of time, as what relevence do they have to the Magrebian populations or those present in Mali. www.urbanfischer.de/journals/homo
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 10, 2005 4:13:57 GMT -5
The only reason Coon thought the Badarians weren't Negroid was because they didn't have woolly enough hair.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jul 10, 2005 14:21:55 GMT -5
You're right. Taking it out of that Ancient Near Eastern Civilization peg doesn't seem quite right. So, I suppose it wouldn't be incorrect to feel that Egypt has some kind of a kinship to the Middle East simply by mere virtue of geography. The Egyptians knew of Assyrians, Sea Peoples, Hyksos, etc. because they had direct contact with these peoples. The Egyptians didn't have direct contact with distant colored folks like West Africans or Bantus or Khoisan, no, but they did have contact with East Africans, the region where the foundations of their civilization sprung. Egyptians are still African because of all the reasons Shomarka Keita stated. I guess if you wanted to stretch it to make everybody happy, it is easier to just call Egypt collectively both an East African and a Near Eastern civilization. The goal should be not to make everybody happy but to find the truth,whether it makes people happy or not.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jul 10, 2005 15:02:15 GMT -5
Afrocentric? At another conference, hosted by the Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage and designed as a hostile condemnation of Afrocentrism, Keita's contribution 'Is studying Egypt in its African context "Afrocentric"?' offered an important disruption to the generality of opinion. (78) In his presentation, Keita outlined four ways in which one can formulate an answer to the question of whether Egypt was an African culture, through evidence from geography, language, archaeology and biology. Geographical evidence suggests that 'Nilotic flora and fauna are well integrated into the culture of the early Egyptians; this suggests that the people were indigenous, or at least that the culture developed locally and was not an import'. Ancient Egyptian is universally accepted as part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, the origins of which are in the Horn of Africa. The archaeological record shows that 'the sequence of cultures which clearly leads to dynastic Egypt is found in southern Egypt' and that pre-dynastic Egypt 'arose most directly from a Saharo-Nilotic base'. Besides rehearsing his earlier arguments about biological relations, Keita adds two important points. In further exploding the paradigm of racialised thinking, Keita declares it 'conceptually wrong to say that "Africans" split from "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", "Australoids" etc. ad nauseam, as has sometimes been done, or even the reverse, because these terms carry certain stereotyped physical trait associations'. An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that 'there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa' (emphasis in original). Keita's summary position is that 'It is not a question of "African" "influence"; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct' (emphasis added). (79) Taken from: Finally in Africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko. Race and Class; 7/1/2003; Kamugisha, Aaron (78) Shomarka Keita, 'Is studying Egypt in its African context 'Afrocentric'?' in Were the Achievements of Ancient Greece Borrowed from Africa? Proceedings from a Seminar sponsored by the Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage, Georgetown University, 16 November 1996. Other contributors to this conference included Mary Lefkowitz, Deborah Boedeker, Erich Mattel, Stanley Burstein, James D. Muhly, Jay Jasanoff and Frank Yurco. This comment is directed to everyone here, not just you, Charlie. Let's face it people and stop beating around the bush: the real issue of concern here is "What were the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians?". I'm sure most of you here have heard of the "primary fission" in human genetic history--- between "Africans" and "non-Africans". To whom were the ancient Egyptians most closely related biologically, and who would be their modern representatives? To Charlie: You quote from Keita an awful lot. I find nothing he says (from the little I've read) objectionable, but at the same time I get the feeling he's being purposefully vague while the biological affinities of the Egyptians are his real concern. BTW, what were his "earlier arguments about biological relations?" Do you have a link to these? Also, does anybody here take Diop seriously? (his name in the title of your source) I read his book when I served on a school board cirriculum committee and I couldn't help but notice that most of his sources came from the 18th and 19th century and I believe the most recent from the 1930's. A lot of people in my school district were quite excited by Diop. I must admit I was not impressed.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 10, 2005 15:02:34 GMT -5
Not so sure about the Badarians being negroids mike... and from what I understand the Pre-Dynastic and the Late Dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than to any other regional clusters in the world. and Keita ? Go read what dienekes posted above at the top of this page ..
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Jul 10, 2005 15:34:01 GMT -5
That's a very nice article, it's translated by google from from into english:
2. The antiquated time (6000 - approx. 3000)
prehistory
On the plates, in particular in the west of Thèbes, one found a quantity considerable of flints paleolithic: double-side parts, chalossiennes, chelléennes, acheuléennes, often splendid, of color dark chestnut, called by the specialists patinates chocolate.
One distinguishes there forms connected in Aurignacien of Europe. It was the time when the man still lived, in the steppe of the plate, hunting and the gathering. It went down in the valley to fish and collect the useful plants.
Then, with the Neolithic era, the flint tools differ more and more from those of Europe, but are connected with those of North Africa, because undoubtedly of the similarity of the needs, the geographical conditions and the relative proximity.
The predynastic period Towards the end of the Neolithic era emerges, at a date which one could not specify, perhaps former to thousand-year-old IVe, a civilization more especially nilotic.
The first demonstrations were found by it in Badari and to El-Amrah, also one often gives to these old times the names of Badarien and Amratien. The man is installed in the valley in organized villages. He has huts, buries his deaths, cultivates the ground where he already makes push two essential cereals of Egypt, the barley and the corn starch manufacturer (Triticum dicoccum). He also invented, for the ornament, a kind of earthenware of a light blue, which one will then find for all the periods of the history. He can paint white features on a smoothed red pottery and he carves muds in the hard stone.
It is however on a later date that a considerable progress is achieved, with the cultures guerzéenne and nagadienne. It is supposed that foreign people, from Hamito-Semitic stock, came by the east from the Delta or the ouadi Hammamat to settle in Egypt. It probably spoke the ancestor about the historical Egyptian, still very near to the Semitic one; it was established little by little on all the extent of the country and amalgamated with the autochtones. The bottom of the historical Egyptian population appears to go back to this time, in spite of the mixtures - limited enough - which had to result from Asian invasions, Libyan or Sudanese. If Guerzéens had invented only the painting of scenes and of landscapes carried out with the white feature on a bottom smoothes pink-yellow, their innovations had not been considerable. But they could rise above the utility needs until reaching the artistic perfection. Their broad flint blades, double-side and curved a little, have a median axis around of which the traces of the glares are laid out with a regularity which holds of the wonder, when one knows the difficulty of the size of flint. They are obviously tools or weapons of pageantry which one had hesitated to employ with the risk to notch them. They were decorated sometimes ivory or gold handles. The latter, carved, the such famous knife of Gebel el-Arak in the Louvre, reveal already a technical skill and a gift of the composition completely new. If one adds the work of gold and the money, the composition of the green make-up, the construction of certain buildings in mattress of reeds, one recognizes already a developed company, whose organization was to correspond to the industrial and artistic achievements.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jul 11, 2005 1:05:45 GMT -5
Not so sure about the Badarians being negroids mike... and from what I understand the Pre-Dynastic and the Late Dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than to any other regional clusters in the world. and Keita ? Go read what dienekes posted above at the top of this page .. Keita is atleast more objective than you are You are obviously not willing to change your language nor perspective nor do you have an open mind by the looks of your posts. Your just some biased (white) guy on the internet from with lots of free computer time and rants lol.
|
|