I'm not strawmanning anything that you stated. You cited a passage from Keita's study in which a commonality was noted between Lower Egyptians and Coastal Northwest African populations. I merely pointed out the fact that Keita (and many other bio-anthropologist) have found that Coastal Northwest Africans are a mixture of tropical Africans (black) and neighboring Europeans, and the less than probable theory that Africans on the other end of the continent during Pre-Dynastic times obtained their phenotype from that type of admixture. But as you've noted their cranio-metric variation was indigenous to Africa.
You repeatively claim that i am equating lower egyptians with semitic people, rather i am stating that they share similar physical traits that could be explained by either environment, genetic mixture, or otherwise
You're reaching now! No where does state that their cranio-metric pattern is intermediate between Semitic and Nubian populations, he stated that it was intermediate between some Sub Saharan African populations and Northern Europeans. Why you are desperately trying to inject Semitic people into this mix is beyond me, but please do not insist that my source states things that it clearly doesn't.
Then the study is silly, why not compare it to cranium that is geographically similar rather than distant?
Again you are reaching. Divergence is seen across "black African" populations. The skulls and genetics of some Sub Saharan East Africans are divergent from other Sub Saharan populations, it does not mean that they are less African or are the result of some type of admixture; it does not mean that they are no longer tropically adapted and obtained lighter skin color during this process. All if indicates is a new indigenous variation to Africa.
Actually east africans have been mixing with Arabs for some time now. Their gene pool has shown to include Eurasian genes as i noted below. What you seem to be doing is making this into a categorical yes or no question, rather it is a dimensional one. Lower egyptians had less of a tropical body than their upper egyptian cousins, but more so than the people to the east. I find it interesting how you assume that Africans= Black when it only applies to tropical Africa. Tropical body plan correlates with colour, yes or no? If not, then the colour of lower egyptians are still under question
Again no one denies that there was interaction between Lower Egypt and populations of the Levant, but you are equating both population with one another in some attempt to lighten the appearance of early northern Egyptians which is fallacious.
What? I'm equating the fact that they inhabit similar latitudes, which correlates much more to skin colour than body type. I am not equating semites to lower egyptians
You for what ever reason are continuing to ignore the fact that Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians were tropically adapted like the Africans further to the south, and distinct from the sub tropically adapted people to East in the Levant:
No i am not, i said they were LESS THAN UE but GREATER THAN the levant. Individual Human variation is much larger than group variation, so there will be levantine people that are tropically adapted, but less frequently than Northern egyptians
PLEASE ADDRESS THE FINDING ABOVE, before you make anymore assertions about the physical appearance of Lower Egyptians. Once gain tropical adaption by ecological principal means that a population has dark skin (are amongst the darkest in the world). The fact that early Lower Egyptians were tropically adapted and had a Saharan Nilotic agricultural system and cultural basis, is a dead give away that these people came from the Nilotic communities of the ancient Sahara.
First: the link http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf
Second: P.5 mentioned evidence of craniofacial similarities Between the Levantine people and Lower Egyptians posited by Klug and Beck
Third: i never denied that Lower egyptians had "tropical body patterns" but that they had less of one compared to Upper Egyptians. In fact, the evidence here suggests that craniofacial patterns are more similar to levantine populations than Upper Egyptians, micro-evolution or genetic mixture.
Dude this assertion is a
JOKE! You nor anyone else has even provided artistic evidence of a physical differentiation between Upper and Lower Egyptians, yet you and some others for some reason maintain that one was "somehow" lighter skinned then the other. What you all basing this assertion on, please provide the evidence that leads some of you to believe this nonsense.
Dude, i was talking about the new dynasty, and you admitted yourself that the New Dynasty were mixed peoples. With Lower egypt becomming more powerful in the new kingdom, it stands to reason that more lower egyptians came into power
You stated that there was no way to know the exact population of both regions, and I provided a scholars interpretation of the available evidence and that scholar like many others concludes that Lower Egyptians was much less populated then the south. Is it really that hard to believe? Here are other scholars who share the same opinion of the regions population density:
Yes, but even they admit it as a WORKING HYPOTHESIS, meaning that its a starting point and not even close to fact. I said there was no EMPIRICAL way of proving it, which means settlements and housing. All of which has been destroyed or lies under metres of silt.
Once again I'm not sure why you're so hung up on proving that Lower Egypt was as populated as the south during early Egyptian history, but it's getting beyond the point of ridiculous when you disregard the consistent words of scholars just to come to your own lofty conclusions of the matter.
Lower egypt at the time consisted of the Nile delta and the nile all the way to around Faiyum, not just the nile delta. We go by cultural artefacts, not arbitrary geographic lines. Its not this barren wasteland that you imagine it is, there were a significant number of people there that even scholars using a working hypothesis gave at least 1/4 of egyptian population there
Remember that it's always best to cite your source. The above is an UNpeer reviewed, UNpublished,
THESIS paper from Raxter. There are several flaws in her conclusions. One being the assertion that populations can rapidly obtain longer limbs by moving into a warmer climate, when it has been proven that it takes over 15k years for a population to begin to adjust to a new climatic region. By her explanation the Native Americans who settled in the tropics of America thousands of years ago should also be just as tropically adapted as most Africans who have been longer residents of the tropics, but of course they aren't! None the less even through her lofty conclusion she cannot deny this:
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, i agree her conclusion is unfounded, but the data suggests an intermediate body type of predynastic lower egyptians, that may have mixed with isolated levant migrants The majority are probably still indigenous North Africans
The bolded red says it all and comes from the same study. The ancient Egyptians and Nubians (notice how both are yet again mentioned interchangeably) are tropically adapted like other black African populations. Nothing new here.
Yes we already established that Upper egypt and nubia were closely intertwined. The problem is of course the unbalanced skeletal remains of upper egypt compared to lower egypt.
Bookmarks