Yeah, I believe that I'm the one who linked you all to it. The statement that you cited specifically dealt with
Late Dyanstic Lower Egyptians, and their cranial commonality with Coastal Northwest Africans. None the less the study indicates, that even Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians had a cranio-metric value that was between that of tropical African populations and some European ones.
But of course you wouldn't argue that Europeans settled the Lower Nile, without of a shred of archaeological, linguistic, or cultural data would you? What this finding indicates (and as Keita indicates) the Lower Egyptian crania was divergent from that which is seen in Upper Egypt and Nubia, which negates population mixing but rather
indigenous African variation. More recent analysis also confirm that the early Lower Egyptian cranio-metric pattern was indigenous to Africa:
Why are you strawmaning me? i never said that europeans colonized egypt, i have consistently stated that lower egyptians were specifically Indigenous to North Africa. Being an Intermediary between the semitic people and the Nubian peoples to the south, it would be expected to see mixed features in northern africa, especially after the Drying of the sahara beginning around the mid-holocene. The "divergence" would suggest phenotypic change from "negoid" facial features to features that resemble the semitics to the east. There is extensive evidence of Semitic influence of the Egyptian language and culture, as i linked to you before, but the genetic evidence suggests a mainly indigneous people. The divergence from "negroid features" would suggest either population mixing, or a change in features induced by the environment. If it is induced by the environment, it would also mean a change in skin tone as well, since people living in similar latitudes share similar skin tones. This would explain the tan skin tone of lower egyptians depicted in the artwork (since most Artwork surviving are from the new dynasty, not the older dynasty). Since, as you claim, it is not the former, then it is the latter. Thus, environmental change induced a change from "black features" to "white features". WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT FEATURES RIGHT?
Something else to note, is that Coastal Northwest African populations obtained their intermediate cranio-metric population, due to admixture between tropical African and European populations. This corner of Africa has been proven to have been a true melting pot of "races" if you will for thousands of years by anthropology (as evident in that same study by Keita) and genetics:
The genetic distinction between Northwest Africans and Lower Egyptians is confirmation that Lower Egyptians were not a mirror population of Northwest Africans. As you can see the complete lack of a European genetic component (as well as archaeological, linguistic, or cultural evidence) in these Lower Egyptian Berbers and rather more of an East African affinity confirms that there was not an early European presence in early Lower Egypt. This negates the claim that their early intermediate cranio-metric value was the result of tropical African and European admixture.
I'm glad we agree that Egyptians were indigenous, do you read what i post? It was mentioned a few posts ago that the anthropological consensus was that egyptians were north africans
Says who? The sparsely populated Delta and Lower Egyptian region during early Dynastic times, is a fact that won't find much (if any) opposition against:
So wait, i posted that theres no empirical way of determining population levels, and you post an "opinion"? Do you know what probable means? It implies that the person is GUESSING based on avaliable evidence. In fact, even your article states that the Nile delta was incredibly fertile, and that any archeological data that would suggest settlement were washed away by the rising flood waters and buildup of silt (p.41 PDF page no last paragraph). P.52 titled "changes in Delta and Faiyum" continues the difficulty in gauging settlement size and number due to it's destruction by flood waters. Once again, in page 74, the authors admit that estimation of settlement patterns in the nile delta is too "fragmentary" and incomplete to make a sensible population estimation. Finally, the population numbers used to determine the population of lower vs upper egypt is SPECULATIVE (mentioned in p.82), intended to be used as a working hypothesis and not literal fact. This means that his "guess" is based on fragmentary evidence and based on the avaliable biased evidence it suggests upper egypt has more "settled population". However, your article also states that the biological carrying capacity of lower egypt is similar to that of today, and the idea that the Delta was uninhabited marshland during predynastic egypt is a myth. Meaning that the theoretical carrying capacity is much the same as it is today, which combined with the fragmentary evidence of population demographics, there is ample evidence that suggests population figures of upper and lower egypt are more equal than previous estimations. It is also good to point out that population density does not suggest a greater population, just more people per square mile I Actually spent time reading these articles, can you do the same?
link
Your entire premise seems to ride on your own speculative theory that Lower Egypt was of equal importance to the creation of Dynastic Egyptian civilization, and of course the baseless assertion that these Lower Egyptians were some sort of Semitic people. Of course you nor anyone else entertaining this notion has provided any biological evidence suggesting this to be the case. Even those who chose to throw away real scientific evidence and rely solely of subjective art work interpretations cannot point out any representations of Egyptian artwork showing a distinction in phenotype between Upper and Lower Egyptians, which is interesting.
Whether they are equal or lesser or greater, it does not matter. They are EGYPTIAN, their history is as important as those of the south. Did rome not justify their eradication of Gaulish culture because of their own percieved superiority? Are you not doing the same by making Egyptian history one solely of southern origin, rather than a symbiotic relationship?
Again, i have repeatively said that they are an INDIGENOUS NORTH AFRICAN PEOPLE with heavy semitic influences. Furthermore, phenotypic evidence is implied in the article by SOY Kieta, with suggests phenotypic evolution of features that were closer to the neighbouring semites then the nubians. Remember we talked about climate role in craniofacial/body anthromorphy?
It forced Nilotic pastoralist northward into Lower Egypt as well:
Conceded. Bidirectional migration would imply that as well
link
The baseline culture of pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt is seen as a continuation of Nilotic Saharan traditions, like that of Upper Egypt. Now while it is probable that some people from the Levant may have settled in the region prior to unification, it is merely speculative and being such is confirmation that their (people from the Levant) role in the creation of Egypt was insignificant.
The baseline culture of Lower Egypt far more complex then that. the Faiyum A culture is composed of 2 cultures, one that has semitic origins and another of eastern saharan origin. However, it is important to note that the Moerian culture disappears when The next stage of lower egyptian culture (the merimde culture) arrives, while the Faiyum A culture is believed to be the Merimde culture's parent culture. http://www.faiyum.com/html/neolithic...ml#OriginsMoer
Kozlowski and Ginter 1989 suggest that while the Faiyum may have had its origins in the Near East, the Moerian may have originated in the Eastern Sahara. Caneva explains (Caneva 1992, p.221): “The late Neolithic Moerian of the second half of the 4th Millennium BC is thought to be ascribed to the displacement of people from the Western Desert”. In other words it is possible that as increasing aridity in the desert regions forced people to seek favourable circumstances elsewhere, a new influx of people were responsible for a new industry (the Moerian). “The chronological sequence of the cultures in the Fayum shows that the influences from the two regions reached the Fayum in separate times, first from the Levant and later from the Western Desert” (Caneva 1992, p.223). The Moerian is not, however, in any way analogous to Merimde. As usual, more data would be helpful. Kozlowski (1983 p.70-71) suggests that on the basis of shared components in the Faiyum Neolithic and the Moerian (e.g. discoidal blade cores, tool morphologies and pottery) that contacts between the two was possible.
Who denies these facts? I'm only denying your baseless implications of what you think this points to.
Once again your entire premise is set on the baseless conclusion that Upper Egyptians were black and Lower Egyptians were some lighter skinned Semitic people. If you believe this to be true then you need to provide the scientific evidence suggesting this to be the case, rather than expecting people to accept this at face value. On the other hand what I have presented in this discussion confirms a biological distinction between Lower Egyptians the Middle Easterners and rather a biological continuum between Lower Egyptians and African populations further to the south:
No, but they were light skinned with features that were more similar to semitics than Sub Saharan Africans. We are talking about features, and the scientific consensus is that the environment changes craniofacial features. Now to the topic of "tropical limb features", this is not an indicator of "blackness" since it is clear that phenotypic adaptation has shown that lower egyptians had less tropical limb adaptation than those of the south, suggesting lighter features. Never had i said North Africans were semitic, merely heavily influenced by semitic people and RESEMBLE them due to environmentally induced phenotypic change
So from here we can see that those people of early Lower Egypt had the same tropical African adaptive traits as the "black" populations further to the south, which is distinct from that of the Levant. Tropical adaptation means (based on ecological principal) that a population has "dark skin". Lower Egyptians likely had a skin color within the great range (the widest range in the world) of that seen in tropical African further to the south (from Igbo yellow to Dinka pitch black).
In essence what you see in early Lower Egypt is a population that has a cranial morphological indigenous to Africa; tropical African adaptive traits (pointing to an origins in the tropics further to the south); a Nilotic African pastoralist basis of their pre-dynastic culture. Tell me what to you indicates that these people were Levantine or were somehow lighter skinned then those Egyptians further to the south. Provide biological evidence for your claim or please admit that your claim is baseless.
Lower Egyptian males and females possess the lowest crural indices of the four
subdivided groups (Table 23). Lower Egyptian males are significantly different from
Upper Egyptians (p = .028) and Lower Nubians (p < 0.001). Lower Nubian males
possess the highest crural index and are significantly different from all other male groups
within the region (LE, UE and UN) (Table 23). Among females, Lower Egyptians also
possess the smallest crural indices, which is significant from all other groups within the
Northeast African region (Table 23). The smallest indices in both Lower Egyptian males
and females is expected since Lower Egyptians occupied the northern most area of the
region, closest to the more temperate climate of the Mediterranean Sea. Lower
Egyptians were also geographically farther from Sub-Saharan Africa and thus would
have had less opportunity for gene flow with Sub-Saharan groups.
These results thus
support the hypothesis that northern Egyptians possess less tropical body proportions
due to their more northern geographical position.
Talking about tropical limb porportion, implying that they are of lighter skin if the correlation between tropical limb proportion and skin colour holds true. Also suggests that lower egyptians had wider bodies than upper egyptians/upper Nubians, as well as different cranial structures etc. It suggests that enviromental stressors caused the body change, and implies a lightening of skin colour due to these adaptation (since skin colour can not be reliably tested for). The article also states that environment correlates with body type more than genetics or "skin colour", given the evidence presented here.
What you are claiming that I'm fabricating, is showing your own lack of knowledge in regard to this subject. As you can see above from an authoritative source Lower Egypt was sparsely populated, and the Delta was almost uninhabited prior to the New Kingdom. Will you admit that you are wrong about this?
Your article suggested less dense population, not population levels. Even so, they also acknowledge the problem of estimating settlement numbers because of silt accumulation and erosion, and that their figures are a working hypothesis and not fact. My other article explains that most settlements were built on floodplains,
Throughout Ancient Egyptian history, the majority of settlements were located on the Nile floodplain while the Upper Egyptian cemeteries were often positioned slightly beyond the edge of the cultivated land, in the desert margins. As a consequence, many settlement sites (with the exception of those constructed on reasonably high ground or, in the example of Kom Ombo, on tells - the residential debris of previous sedentary communities) have either been covered by silt or simply washed away as the river changed course, thus providing an explanation for the low ratio of Upper Egyptian Predynastic living-sites in relation to their known cemeteries. Another reason is probably due in part to earlier excavators’ priorities. The Predynastic cemeteries, containing much grave goods (some of which were made from exotic materials), attracted greater interest to excavate than habitation sites either disturbed by digging for sebakh (organic remains utilised as fertiliser) or else wiped out by the more recent expanding floodplain agriculture.
And that the lower egyptians, being a different culture, built cemetaries on flood plains, which were wiped out by harsher flooding
Until the early 1960s, Middle Egypt (to the north of Badari and south of Memphis) was believed to have been uninhabited in Predynastic times. However, work conducted by the geologist Karl Butzer has revealed that cemeteries dating to this period in time were probably either wiped out by shifts in the channel of the Nile or are buried beneath substantial sand and alluvium deposits. Those surviving Predynastic living-sites are all positioned on embankments that are several metres above the modern alluvium level. Their survival is therefore fortuitous. Butzer further hypothesises that the low settlement density in the region between Memphis and the Upper Egyptian sites may also have been the result of the large natural Middle Egyptian flood basins that “would have required massive labour to bring under control.” By contrast, the flood basins from Abydos southwards, in Upper Egypt, were smaller and thereby more easily controllable than those from further north and the Delta.
Why the upper egyptians conquered the lower egyptians is suggested afterwards. The smaller amount of arable land required more organization of labour caused increased competition over avaliable land. Lower Egypt, being incredibly fertile and larger in arable land, had population that did not require competition over resources to the extent of upper egypt.
It seems at first glance an ecological paradox that Upper Egypt was the initial heartland of cultural complexity and not Lower Egypt with its wide fertile lands and richer diversity in resources due to its contact with the Mediterranean lands. Yet the Upper Egyptian flood basins were smaller in size and therefore easier to control for agricultural purposes. The early state formation model of Carneiro could well thus be relevant in this context, as he hypothesises that a sharp population rise in restricted agricultural environments leads to pressure on the available resources and military competition over land ensues.
Lower egypt being more fertile and larger in arable land could more easily absorb the population increase, but they cannot simulate the intensity of interstate competition that allowed upper egypt to eventually mobilize large numbers of warriors, unified by an upper egyptian state
You have got to be kidding me? That website is a joke, which makes points are not even entertained by mainstream academia (i.e Oxford, Fitzwilliam, Cambridge, Yale ect). "Semitic origins" of ancient Egypt is one of their sub sections...did they content on stopping their research of this during the 1950's? Can you name even one modern academic institute that would side with this random website? That website is trash dude, you need to come with something better than that to combat my sources (not trying to toot my horn or anything but its true).
Bookmarks