posted "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)
posted
^ What is said in the passages you cited is pretty much what has been said in this forum for years now and is continually still being said now and perhaps for years to come.
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
Well yea, and is again pretty much why I posted it; of course it's no surprise though, as to why the trolls i've mentioned make no presence in this thread, or try to at least pose a refutation.
Sundjata Member # 13096
posted
Given many of the recent distractions, a bit of refreshing may be in order.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Yes; notice the trolls are too scared to touch this one (thread & paper).
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
...... bumped
DULL-RAB debunkedd Member # 16646
posted
^^^ an apt, and ironic bump.
Some continually cite Afrocentric critic mary lefkowitz, who curiously enough recommends Lovell's work as a model. In Black Athena Revisited, (1996) Lefkowitz says:
Quote: "not surprisingly, the Egyptian skulls were not very distance from the Jebel Moya [a Neolithic site in the southern Sudan] skulls, but were much more distance from all others, including those from West Africa. Such a study suggests a closer genetic affinity between peoples in Egypt and the northern Sudan, which were close geographically and are known to have had considerable cultural contact throughout prehistory and pharaonic history... Clearly more analyses of the physical remains of ancient Egyptians need to be done using current techniques, such as those of Nancy Lovell at the University of Alberta is using in her work.."
and as you show above, here's what the recommended Lovell says:
"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)
and
"must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("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)
But strangely, these people never get around to citing Lovell, even though she is recommended by Lefkowitz...
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
^Upping this thread, yet again in the midst of all the nonsensical postings being thrown up/vomited upon this board...
Albeit knowing there is about a one in a million chance of it actually receiving a response from the new coming repetitive trolls (using the same outdated studies long debunked).
I will still patiently wait and see if it will be met with any kind of argument, refutation or whatever it may be....
zarahan Member # 15718
posted
lol... perhaps they are consulting 'Mein Kampf' for fresh insights..
But in the meantime, quick questions. The study below shows the Egyptians grouping more closely with African groups when individual cranio-metric variation is considered, using Howell's database.
Another diagram in the same study however groups the data by series and the grouping proximity is weakened, although as we know in Howells Nubians, (Kerma) are closer to Egyptians than others. Nubians are not represented in the study below.
Would you get different results based on whether series is used, versus individual variation? There may be others, but the below study is the only one I know that seems to diagram the distinction.
Confirmation of modern limb proportion studies. (Raxter & Ruff 2008, Zakrewski 2003). The tropically-adapted peoples closest to Egyptians In Africa are fellow Africans. Resemblance also occurs with other tropically adapted peoples outside Africa as in Tasmania. (--Walter A. Neves, Mark Hubbe. (2005). Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. vol. 102 no. 51.pp. 18309-18314
posted
Wow I love the Ideas and Information, I am flabbergasted at the amount of support and Information that you guys are giving. The more info the better and I am incredibly grateful. There is just so much about Egypt and it is incredibly overwhelming of how much mainstream history leaves out.
posted
Bumped for Fawal...and all other illogical dissenters.
Hammer Member # 17003
posted
Djehuti is not even trying to disguise his racial politics now. If you cannot win the argument just call threm liars, oldest ploy in the book. Earth to Djehuti....they are not listening to you and do not care. Feed the monkey, watch him crap.
Bob_01 Member # 15687
posted
^ This man need help. I don't remember him fielding a position ever. Why not just lodge a sharp object into yourself if you hate your life so dearly? This redneck mentality needs to go.
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
Notice how this thread always goes untouched by the bigoted individuals that plague this board with their drivel... Fawal et al. where are you?
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
^^Bumped for Hammerhead, let's see if he can practice what he preaches... I'm putting you the test Hammer, let's see if you pass or fail.
Tell me what's wrong (if there is something wrong) with the conclusions posited in the above chapter on the physical anthropology of the ancient Egyptians, will you?
Muhommed Abed Member # 17412
posted
There is a Eurocentric slant to these studies. It seems the authors have manipulated the language to appease one group; the Afrocentrist view of a black Egypt, while still holding on to the position that Ancient Egypt was predominantly non black. You can see the caveats cleverly placed in the language. I will highlight them in the quotes.
quote: "not surprisingly, the Egyptian skulls were not very distance from the Jebel Moya [a Neolithic site in the southern Sudan] skulls, but were much more distance from all others, including those from West Africa. Such a study suggests a closer genetic affinity between peoples in Egypt and the northern Sudan, which were close geographically and are known to have had considerable cultural contact throughout prehistory and pharaonic history... Clearly more analyses of the physical remains of ancient Egyptians need to be done using current techniques, such as those of Nancy Lovell at the University of Alberta is using in her work.."
quote: "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)
quote: "must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term [b]effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("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)
These scholars and academics aren't quite ready to give up all of Ancient Egypt. They are willing to sacrifice upper Egypt, but lower Egypt still remains within their grip. Personally, I don't think Ancient Egypt will ever be taught in academia as an ancient Black civilization.
KING Member # 9422
posted
Muhommed Abed
This is where I hope you are wrong.
There will always be truthseekers and I hope academia will open their eyes and realize that lieing does no one any good. Ancient Egypt IS a Black Civilzation. People who try to deny this is playing the nonsense card because most of the people interested and who pays their bills are europeans, so they try and appese them by not saying the TRUTH, BUT in the End TRUTH will prevail.
Peace
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed: There is a Eurocentric slant to these studies. It seems the authors have manipulated the language to appease one group; the Afrocentrist view of a black Egypt, while still holding on to the position that Ancient Egypt was predominantly non black. You can see the caveats cleverly placed in the language. I will highlight them in the quotes.
quote: "not surprisingly, the Egyptian skulls were not very distance from the Jebel Moya [a Neolithic site in the southern Sudan] skulls, but were much more distance from all others, including those from West Africa. Such a study suggests a closer genetic affinity between peoples in Egypt and the northern Sudan, which were close geographically and are known to have had considerable cultural contact throughout prehistory and pharaonic history... Clearly more analyses of the physical remains of ancient Egyptians need to be done using current techniques, such as those of Nancy Lovell at the University of Alberta is using in her work.."
This is Mary Lefkowitz.^^^
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed:
quote: "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)
Not sure why you would highlight the part you did other than to point out that all Egyptians after examination of the skeletal remains were found to be tropically adapted, and that especially southern Egyptians showed more biological affinities to more southerly areas than the northern Egyptians. So what? This is already known.
The northern Egyptians are indeed noted to exhibit physical characteristics that are within the range of indigenous people of the Sahara and tropical Africa just like southern Egyptians, except southern Egyptians and Nubians showed more affinities to people in more southerly areas.
I'll ask you like I asked Fawal, who are the indigenous people of the Sahara and tropical Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed:
quote: "must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term [b]effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("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)
These scholars and academics aren't quite ready to give up all of Ancient Egypt. They are willing to sacrifice upper Egypt, but lower Egypt still remains within their grip. Personally, I don't think Ancient Egypt will ever be taught in academia as an ancient Black civilization.
What are you talking about? Lower Egypt is in their grips how, if lower Egypt fits within the range of physical characteristics for ancient and modern people of the Sahara and tropical Africa? The quote specifically says that after an examination through a multi-disciplined approach that the ancient Egyptians can be identified as part of an African lineage but exhibiting local variation most likely due to evolutionary forces. Meaning local variation, but still tropical African. So I fail to see where you note from the quote that they're saying anything other than that.
Brada-Anansi Member # 16371
posted
Muhommed Abed
quote:"not surprisingly, the Egyptian skulls were not very distance from the Jebel Moya [a Neolithic site in the southern Sudan] skulls, but were much more distance from all others, including those from West Africa. Such a study suggests a closer genetic affinity between peoples in Egypt and the northern Sudan
But wouldn't it make sense that folks closest to them would group more closely to them I don't see the big deal!!
Muhommed Abed Member # 17412
posted
These scholars and academics are using the same methodology concerning Ancient Egypt of the early 20th century; Sub Saharah is substituted with upper Egypt, while Lower Egypt is the new north of the sahara. I must say it is a rather clever manipulation of the language. The layman will think they are conceding to a Black Egypt. Yet after careful examination of the papers, they are not. They are still holding on to the Eurocentric view of Ancient Egypt. They've merely modernized and tweaked their exegesis.
Ask yourself this question, why won't they say Egypt was "Black?" Why are terms like "Tropically adapted" being used? They are crafting the language a certain way to retain the old school of thought.
You have to read critically their papers to see this. These papers should not be read capriciously. These writings are well thought out.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: But wouldn't it make sense that folks closest to them would group more closely to them I don't see the big deal!!
Muhommed Abed Member # 17412
posted
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Not sure why you would highlight the part you did other than to point out that all Egyptians after examination of the skeletal remains were found to be tropically adapted, and that especially southern Egyptians showed more biological affinities to more southerly areas than the northern Egyptians. So what?
Here is the quote: "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"
You see the word "especially" - the subject proceeding it is the focus. The focus is "southern Egyptians." The paper is postulating that the southern Egyptians shared physical characteristics with peoples of Sahara and Tropical Africa." Pause for a second. Now ask yourself, what happened to "Northern Egytpians?" Why no focus on them? Futhermore, Aren't they tropically adapted?
quote: I'll ask you like I asked Fawal, who are the indigenous people of the Sahara and tropical Africa?
My position is Africa was originally a black continent until outside forces exerted enough pressure to change that; this is especially true in north Africa.
quote: What are you talking about? Lower Egypt is in their grips how, if lower Egypt fits within the range of physical characteristics for ancient and modern people of the Sahara and tropical Africa?
That is not quite what the paper says. Here is the quote:
"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"
It is generally true that southern Egyptians exhibited physical characteristics found in Sahara and tropical Africa. But it is not generally true as far as lower Egypt; the paper throws in a caveat [especially] to steer you away from lower Egypt.
quote: The quote specifically says that "after an examination through a multi-disciplined approach that the ancient Egyptians can be identified as part of an African lineage but exhibiting local variation most likely due to evolutionary forces." Meaning local variation, but still tropical African.
That is not quite what it says. It provides two opposing postulates: (1) African Lineage and (2) Local variation. The writer treats the two differently, hence the word "But." The word BUT is a conjunction. As I said the paper is cleverly crafted. African Lineage incompasses all of Africa. However, they throw in a monkey wrench; "Local variation". If African lineage has a multitudinal of variations then why did the author feel the need to throw in "local variation." What did the author mean by local variation? Was it different from the African lineage? Do you see how the author is really contrasting between African Lineage (which by implication means Black) and Locak (north Africa)? Local variation is how they tacitly claim these people were NOT black.
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed: Here is the quote: "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"
You see the word "especially" - the subject proceeding it is the focus. The focus is "southern Egyptians." The paper is postulating that the southern Egyptians shared physical characteristics with peoples of Sahara and Tropical Africa."
No, the actual focus in the subject is ancient Egyptians in general, not just southern, otherwise there would've been no reason to say **especially** southern Egyptians, following "ancient Egyptians" if southern Egypt was the only focal point in the first place. Sorry but try reading it to yourself a few more times, but slowly.
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians"
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed: Now ask yourself, what happened to "Northern Egytpians?" Why no focus on them? Futhermore, Aren't they tropically adapted?
Yes, lower Egypt (northern Egypt) is included when they say ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egyptians means all, and then an emphasis was put to note especially southern.
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed:
quote: I'll ask you like I asked Fawal, who are the indigenous people of the Sahara and tropical Africa?
My position is Africa was originally a black continent until outside forces exerted enough pressure to change that; this is especially true in north Africa.
Well then there's your answer, right?
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed:
quote: What are you talking about? Lower Egypt is in their grips how, if lower Egypt fits within the range of physical characteristics for ancient and modern people of the Sahara and tropical Africa?
That is not quite what the paper says. Here is the quote:
"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"
It is generally true that southern Egyptians exhibited physical characteristics found in Sahara and tropical Africa. But it is not generally true as far as lower Egypt; the paper throws in a caveat [especially] to steer you away from lower Egypt.
No it really doesn't, there's just more of an emphasis through analysis of skeletal remains to indicate that while ancient Egyptians exhibited physical characteristics that are well within the range for ancient and modern peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa, the southern Egyptians (where Narmer was from) especially show this affinity.
We actually know this from numerous other anthropological work, understand? The people in upper Egypt differ from those in lower Egypt, the individuals in upper Egypt features appear more broad as noted by Keita, but this is local variation understand?
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed:
quote: The quote specifically says that "after an examination through a multi-disciplined approach that the ancient Egyptians can be identified as part of an African lineage but exhibiting local variation most likely due to evolutionary forces." Meaning local variation, but still tropical African.
That is not quite what it says. It provides two opposing postulates: (1) African Lineage and (2) Local variation. The writer treats the two differently, hence the word "But." The word BUT is a conjunction. As I said the paper is cleverly crafted. African Lineage incompasses all of Africa. However, they throw in a monkey wrench; "Local variation". If African lineage has a multitudinal of variations then why did the author feel the need to throw in "local variation." What did the author mean by local variation? Was it different from the African lineage? Do you see how the author is really contrasting between African Lineage (which by implication means Black) and Locak (north Africa)? Local variation is how they tacitly claim these people were NOT black.
You have to read the whole chapter to understand, not just snippet-ed quotes, because in the chapter, it is noted that scholars of the past never took into account the evolutionary forces that would produce local variation in situ Africa, they were always quick to explain the variation as due to outside non African admixture, and this chapter clearly refutes that.
"Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize, however that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. Although many people believe they can distinguish "races" on the basis of skin color, more of the variation in human genetic makeup can be attributed to differences between these so-called races than between them. Furthermore, the observable and unobservable (to the eye) physical variation is so great and complex that there are no criteria that can satisfactorily segregate all individuals into one race or another..[...]Unlike the classic typological approach, which interprets variation in physical form as resulting only from admixture of races, contemporary approaches to understanding variation takes into account genetic and physiological adaptations to local and regional environmental factors, such as the intensity of ultraviolet radiation, ambient temperature and humidity. Conceptually, biological affinity express a continuum of relationship that reflects genetic mixing (gene flow) from different local and regional areas in antiquity in addition to evolutionary factors, such as natural selection and genetic drift."-- Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
Maybe you like to read snippet-ed quotes so I'll provide you with one here, the chapter snippet-ed...
quote:Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid). Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize, however that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. Although many people believe they can distinguish "races" on the basis of skin color, more of the variation in human genetic makeup can be attributed to differences between these so-called races than between them. Furthermore, the observable and unobservable (to the eye) physical variation is so great and complex that there are no criteria that can satisfactorily segregate all individuals into one race or another..[...]Unlike the classic typological approach, which interprets variation in physical form as resulting only from admixture of races, contemporary approaches to understanding variation takes into account genetic and physiological adaptations to local and regional environmental factors, such as the intensity of ultraviolet radiation, ambient temperature and humidity. Conceptually, biological affinity express a continuum of relationship that reflects genetic mixing (gene flow) from different local and regional areas in antiquity in addition to evolutionary factors, such as natural selection and genetic drift..[....]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..[...] Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
Upped....again!! Hammerhead what's taking so long?
Abed, you there?
Muhommed Abed Member # 17412
posted
You cannot see the author is careful not to use "Black Africans" when describing the ancient egyptians, especially upper Egypt? You are injecting race into this when clearly the author is avoiding it. Ancient Egyptians were Africans. Black Africans are not the only Africans.
"In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography."
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Maybe you like to read snippet-ed quotes so I'll provide you with one here, the chapter snippet-ed...
quote:Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid). Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize, however that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. Although many people believe they can distinguish "races" on the basis of skin color, more of the variation in human genetic makeup can be attributed to differences between these so-called races than between them. Furthermore, the observable and unobservable (to the eye) physical variation is so great and complex that there are no criteria that can satisfactorily segregate all individuals into one race or another..[...]Unlike the classic typological approach, which interprets variation in physical form as resulting only from admixture of races, contemporary approaches to understanding variation takes into account genetic and physiological adaptations to local and regional environmental factors, such as the intensity of ultraviolet radiation, ambient temperature and humidity. Conceptually, biological affinity express a continuum of relationship that reflects genetic mixing (gene flow) from different local and regional areas in antiquity in addition to evolutionary factors, such as natural selection and genetic drift..[....]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..[...] Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography
Doctoris Scientia Member # 17454
posted
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed: [QB] You cannot see the author is careful not to use "Black Africans" when describing the ancient egyptians, especially upper Egypt? You are injecting race into this when clearly the author is avoiding it. Ancient Egyptians were Africans. Black Africans are not the only Africans.
They don't use the term "Black African", because recently most authors have been keen on not using debunked racialized terms, i.e. "Caucasian","Negroid", etc. Terms such "Tropical African variants" are mush more accurate and popular as of today.
Also, even if the authors were trying to throw the "Afrocentrics" a bone by handing them over Upper Egypt, while "keeping a grip" on Lower Egypt,etc. It dosent really change anything...
Ancient Egyptian culture = Upper Egyptian/Sudanic-Saharo culture
The majority of the Ancient Egyptian population lived and populated UPPER EGYPT, the Lower Egyptian population was relatively SMALL.
Also, people like S.O.Y Keita also decline using terms such as "Black African", he instead uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African"... FYI, he personally compared the Ancient Egyptian population with modern day Nubians... so.
FYI, "Saharo-Tropical African variant" is not in reference to modern day COASTAL North Africans... "mixed race" peoples via recent admixture Eurasia.
Indigenous African=Black or Tropical derived Africans
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed: You cannot see the author is careful not to use "Black Africans" when describing the ancient egyptians, especially upper Egypt? You are injecting race into this when clearly the author is avoiding it. Ancient Egyptians were Africans. Black Africans are not the only Africans.
"In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography."
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Maybe you like to read snippet-ed quotes so I'll provide you with one here, the chapter snippet-ed...
quote:Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid). Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize, however that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. Although many people believe they can distinguish "races" on the basis of skin color, more of the variation in human genetic makeup can be attributed to differences between these so-called races than between them. Furthermore, the observable and unobservable (to the eye) physical variation is so great and complex that there are no criteria that can satisfactorily segregate all individuals into one race or another..[...]Unlike the classic typological approach, which interprets variation in physical form as resulting only from admixture of races, contemporary approaches to understanding variation takes into account genetic and physiological adaptations to local and regional environmental factors, such as the intensity of ultraviolet radiation, ambient temperature and humidity. Conceptually, biological affinity express a continuum of relationship that reflects genetic mixing (gene flow) from different local and regional areas in antiquity in addition to evolutionary factors, such as natural selection and genetic drift..[....]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..[...] Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography
*Sighs* Abed read closer and slowly, there has been two opposing theories for the last century that dominated the Egyptology debate. If they were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating in Saharo tropical Africa or a Dynastic race originating in western Asia (historically categorized as Caucasoid). The chapter then goes on to note anthropologists no longer see "race" as a useful biological concept when applied to humans.
To make a long story short the chapter then notes that according to all available skeletal data, it's confirmed that ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians exhibited physical characteristics that fit with the range of variation for ancient and modern people of the Sahara and tropical Africa . Now rewind back to the the beginning where the chapter noted the two debates that have dominated the mainstream, remember individuals originating biologically and culturally in Saharo tropical Africa were considered black Africans ( historically referred to as Negroid).
Case closed!!
StTigray Member # 16910
posted
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed: There is a Eurocentric slant to these studies. It seems the authors have manipulated the language to appease one group; the Afrocentrist view of a black Egypt, while still holding on to the position that Ancient Egypt was predominantly non black. You can see the caveats cleverly placed in the language. I will highlight them in the quotes. Black Egypt is being taught in Public schools.
quote: "not surprisingly, the Egyptian skulls were not very distance from the Jebel Moya [a Neolithic site in the southern Sudan] skulls, but were much more distance from all others, including those from West Africa. Such a study suggests a closer genetic affinity between peoples in Egypt and the northern Sudan, which were close geographically and are known to have had considerable cultural contact throughout prehistory and pharaonic history... Clearly more analyses of the physical remains of ancient Egyptians need to be done using current techniques, such as those of Nancy Lovell at the University of Alberta is using in her work.."
quote: "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)
quote: "must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term [b]effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("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)
These scholars and academics aren't quite ready to give up all of Ancient Egypt. They are willing to sacrifice upper Egypt, but lower Egypt still remains within their grip. Personally, I don't think Ancient Egypt will ever be taught in academia as an ancient Black civilization.
Muhommed Abed Member # 17412
posted
Keita mainly compares upper Egypt to the southerly people. He doesnt place emphasis on lower Egypt. I said this in an earlier post, scholars are still using the methodology and approach of dividing Africa (North Africa and subsahara) with Acient Egypt; upper egypt is the new subsahara and lower Egypt is the new north Africa. I am kind of surprised you don't see this.
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by Muhommed Abed: [QB] You cannot see the author is careful not to use "Black Africans" when describing the ancient egyptians, especially upper Egypt? You are injecting race into this when clearly the author is avoiding it. Ancient Egyptians were Africans. Black Africans are not the only Africans.
They don't use the term "Black African", because recently most authors have been keen on not using debunked racialized terms, i.e. "Caucasian","Negroid", etc. Terms such "Tropical African variants" are mush more accurate and popular as of today.
Also, even if the authors were trying to throw the "Afrocentrics" a bone by handing them over Upper Egypt, while "keeping a grip" on Lower Egypt,etc. It dosent really change anything...
Ancient Egyptian culture = Upper Egyptian/Sudanic-Saharo culture
The majority of the Ancient Egyptian population lived and populated UPPER EGYPT, the Lower Egyptian population was relatively SMALL.
Also, people like S.O.Y Keita also decline using terms such as "Black African", he instead uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African"... FYI, he personally compared the Ancient Egyptian population with modern day Nubians... so.
FYI, "Saharo-Tropical African variant" is not in reference to modern day COASTAL North Africans... "mixed race" peoples via recent admixture Eurasia.
Indigenous African=Black or Tropical derived Africans
posted
Ask yourself this question, why won't they say Egypt was "Black?" Why are terms like "Tropically adapted" being used? They are crafting the language a certain way to retain the old school of thought.
Abed Im going to be respectful: Tropically adapted is black, Instead of using Negor or Caucasian which is bunk and out dated languages Tropically adapted makes more sense plus the Label Black is a highly shaky term the Idea of Black is different for Different cultures.
Jari-Ankhamun Member # 14451
posted
Something very relevent to this discussion:
Knowledge of cities, towns and houses in the Predynastic through Middle Kingdom periods is limited to rare traces of domestic architecture, because for the most part, the settlements are destroyed or covered by later and even modern construction. It is even more difficult to study early agricultural villages because they were built of reed mats and mud-brick that did not last the millennia as stone does. We know less about the houses the people lived in and more about their "houses of eternity," their tombs.
The oldest known seasonal settlements in Predynastic period Egypt were found in the Faiyum. Merimda, in the western Delta, was later found to be the oldest permanent settlement, bearing some similarities to the earlier Faiyum culture.
The earliest villages were clusters of dwellings with no walls or palisades, and these probably were circular in shape, just as Abydos has revealed it had. In the Faiyum, mud huts were built on mounds along the north and northeastern shores of the once considerable lake. Agriculture began, as emmer, wheat, barley and flax were cultivated and harvested.
At Merimda, the inhabitants built reed shelters and houses of wickerwork. Underground silos were lined with basketry to store grain. Sheep, cattle, and pigs were also kept, and hooks, spears and harpoons were used to fish. Simple graves were dug under the desert sand in the Faiyum, while at Merimda, the dead were buried in the village area, and there were no grave goods.
Another Predynastic culture of Lower Egypt was found at El-Omari, south of the Delta apex. The early remains consist of circular huts with sunken floors covered by reed matting and perhaps coated with clay. The dead were buried in the settlement area with some grave goods, but later, separate cemeteries developed. Other Lower Egyptian Predynastic settlements were at Maadi, opposite the necropolis at Saqqara, at Heliopolis, where the worship of Ra later became prominent, and at Buto, which became the town of the royal tutelary goddess Wadjet.
The earliest of the Upper Egypt Predynastic cultures is called the Badarian, first identified at the site of El-Badari near Asyut.[b] Cemeteries contained oval graves with the body in the contracted position. Bodies were enclosed in basketry or skins, or linen. [b]The bodies were buried with the head towards the south, and facing west, an attitude continued in the succeeding Naqada culture. Grave goods consisted of elaborate girdles or belts, consisting of multiple strands of blue-glazed steatite beads.
The Naqada civilization of Upper Egypt was the most important of all Predynastic cultures, becoming dominant in the land. Irrigation first appeared in Nekhen during the Naqada culture as people drew together into larger settlements and cultivated areas needed to expand. The majority of its sites excavated have been cemeteries. The graves consisted of shallow pits in the low desert, roofed with rough branches, which may have supported a small tumulus of gravel. The bodies were contracted, facing west, with the head to the south, but the grave-goods differed from the Badarian.
Towns were either unplanned or planned. Unplanned settlements arose over long periods, in random fashion, according to the immediate needs of the inhabitants. Such a town might have narrow, oddly twisting alleys, passages, squares and courts, with little open space. Houses might grow upwards in two or possibly three stories. Planned towns such as Deir el-Medina in the Valley of the Kings at western Thebes tended to be more orderly in general design
The most common term in Egyptian for settlement is niwt, translated as "city" or "village." It was a generic determinative for any habitation, but it could also denote a large city, for by the New Kingdom, Waset, or Thebes, was referred to simply as niwt, "the city." The term demy was commonly translated as "town." Other early words for some type of settlement were set, meaning "place" or "abode," –the town of Deir el-Medina was called "Set Maat," or "Place of Truth; and hwt or domain specifically referred to land holdings of a temple.
For almost 2,000 years, the most important population centers in Egypt were Memphis in Lower Egypt and Thebes, dominating Upper Egypt in similar fashion. Other towns such as Tanis, Bubastis, Mendes, Sais, PiRamesses, and Alexandria, also gained prominence as administrative centers.
Memphis was thought to be a conglomeration of residential areas located around a royal fortress-like palace and the temple of Ptah, all surrounded by the "White Walls." The settlement grew quickly, enhanced by the foundation of pyramid towns such as that of Pepi I in the 5th Dynasty. Saqqara and Giza served as the necropolises for Memphis, and they were cities in their own right, not just containing the tombs, or "houses of eternity," which were modeled upon the plan of actual houses of the living, but because of their mortuary cult personnel as well, who lived nearby and functioned within the necropolis. In addition, Giza contained the houses of the workmen who built the pyramids and tomb complexes in the 4th and 5th Dynasties.
Thebes began as a loosely linked series of settlements and population centers on the east and west banks of the Nile. It was probably a series of clustered houses or neighborhoods built near various temples, with gardeners, potters, fishermen, craftsmen, physicians, scribes, district officers, all living in the same neighborhood.
The town of el-Lahun, or Illahun, or Kahun, founded by Senwosret II in the Middle Kingdom, was located in the Faiyum near the new capital. The workers, managers and overseers who built the pyramid of Senwosret II, perhaps 5000 of them including their families, lived here.
Illahun was surrounded by a rectangular enclosure wall 440 yards long by 380 yards wide. In the east were the homes of the notables and courtiers, a dozen of these between 11,000 square feet and 26,000 square feet. The noble homes were well ventilated and set around a peristyle court that led to several reception rooms. From the street one could enter the kitchens, the staff lodgings and the cellars. In the residential part of the house, there were enough bedrooms to accommodate fifty people. Some had bathrooms and drainage systems.
On the west side of town were the workers’ homes, two hundred houses rarely having more than three rooms, a reception room, one or two bedrooms, and a kitchen containing a hearth for baking bread, a millstone and a silo.
Another relatively well-preserved city is Tell el-Amarna, or Akhetaten, the planned capital created by King Akhenaten. It was built on the east bank of the Nile, and had an estimated population of about 30,000. Three main roads divided the city into sectors, the Central Quarter, where the palace, temple and government offices were located, the South, or Main Suburb, where the court and government officials lived, and the North Suburb, which was a middle-class neighborhood with a commercial component, and also included the North Palace.
A wealthy town-house in the city might have looked something like this. The ground floor and basement contained the workshops, bakeries, breweries, and kitchens, and cattle stalls and storerooms. The first floor contained rooms for receiving guests and conducting official business. The second floor contained the private apartments, dining room, bedroom, perhaps a bathroom and the woman’s quarters. On the roof there might be a light shelter used to sit or sleep in the cool northerly night breeze, often identified with the breath of the god Amun, a structure for the birthing process, and space for granaries
The wealthier houses often had latticed windows and large open courtyards, lintels of limestone and wooden beams, and the floors were paved with brick tiles. The houses would be whitewashed within and without, and washed with natron. Houses often had very basic drainage, though they neither brought in running water nor had sewage facilities, but the palaces and some wealthier homes had indoor bathroom facilities.
The peasant’s house on the other hand was a sun-dried brick or clay-daubed reed shelter, one room, one door and no windows. The furniture might consist of a rough stool, chest and perhaps a headrest. Conditions were thus often cramped and overcrowded, and pests and scavengers presented problems, but the villages flourished nonetheless.
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
....
MindoverMatter7I8 Member # 17562
posted
"I'm tired of lying.'And I'm tired of all the ignorance and hypocrisy and the double standards I hear and read about Africa, much of it from people who've never been there, let alone spent three years walking around amid the corpses like I have.
"Talk to me about Africa and my black roots and my kinship with my African brothers and I'll throw it back in your face, and then I'll rub your nose in the images of the rotting flesh and the flies that buzz aroung their nappy ass heads.'
"I myself, spent three years covering the continent's senseless violence, corruption, bloody and incessant cruelties--machete-wielding Hutu militiamen, a cholera epidemic in Zaire, famine in Somalia, civil war in Liberia, disease, dirt, dictatorships, killer children, AIDS, terror.
"Had my ancestor not made it out of here,(thank god they did),'I might have ended up in that crowd...maybe I would have been one of those bodies, washing over the waterfall in Tanzania or maybe my son would have been set ablaze by soldiers. Or I would be limping now from the torture I received in some rancid police cell...'
Afrocentrism 'has become fashionable for many of us blacks.'It cannot work for me "any longer". I have been here, I have lived here and seen Africa in all its horror and im tearing my light-skinned ass.'
"My every word is an assault on the group identity politics which have taken hold among black intellectuals and leads, critics say, to a Balkanisation of American society. Thinking about his slave forebear, transported in chains to the Caribbean and thence to South Carolina, "Thank God my ancestor got out, because, now, I am not one of them [Starving Africans]. In short, I thank God I am an American and Phuck being an African."
Glory for the Red, White, and Blue!
lamin Member # 5777
posted
MindoverMatter718,
Are you quoting Keith Richberg? Sounds like him alright. Anyway whatever the source of the quotes, if you tweak a few words here and there you might just as well be describing any inner city of the U.S. or Brazil--all forced refuge for Africa's exiled children. And when you factor in the 300 years plus of captivity,forced labour,legal segregation, and ongoing oppression, there is not much to boast about West of the Atlantic.
Unfortunately there are negroes who think like Richburg--all willing to excuse the massive and horrific criminalities that made his existence in the U.S. possible.
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
^^Don't know because I didn't post it, look at the name and join date of the impostor.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Of course. These trolls can do nothing but disguise themselves as intelligent posters and try to smear their reputations. It's all they've got because they don't have truth but lies on their side. Speaking of which...
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: Djehuti is not even trying to disguise his racial politics now. If you cannot win the argument just call threm liars, oldest ploy in the book. Earth to Djehuti....they are not listening to you and do not care. Feed the monkey, watch him crap.
No politics at all, Hammered just FACTS. And fact is the trolls ARE liars as they are unable to present anything logical or distort things that are logical. I don't care if they listen to me or not since such desperate deceitful and beguiled idiots are not interested in truth to begin with and that includes YOU.
So how about you address the article from the mainstream encyclopedia for a change.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
So not only do the studies show the Egyptians to be no different from Sub-Saharans skeletally but studies show they were also no different from Sub-Saharans in skin color.
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
And it shows in the ancient artwork.
My, what is a busted fraud Afrangi to do?
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Three dirty monkeys wrapped up in one dirty Afrangi Fraud whose busted.
See no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth.
L' Member # 18238
posted
Bumped for Simple Girl...
On Nancy Lovell, her studies can be found in the 'Uploaded Studies' thread
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Why bump up info for simpletons? It's not like its of any use to their degenerate little minds.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Bumped for Abozo the Fake-ass Egyptian with an Idiotic Agenda.
posted ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
They don't use the term "Black African", because recently most authors have been keen on not using debunked racialized terms, i.e. "Caucasian","Negroid", etc. Terms such "Tropical African variants" are mush more accurate and popular as of today.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
