Since race is more or less a social construct, I decided to ask this here, rather than Egyptology. What race are the Ancient Egyptians? Were they more than one race?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Puzzled. The matter has long been settled. What if one asks "what race were the Chinese of the 1,000 BC?" What would you say?
Don't be misled by the the disease that boils down to "White Derangement Syndrome" when it comes to the AEs. The Ancient Egyptians were very clear on who they were compared to other groups. The civilization lasted 3,000 years and from time to time there were non-African invaders--but the AE portrayal of the GENERIC AE was always there. Plus that gigantic monument to Africa, the Sphinx. Plus don't be misled by the stupid attempts by Eurocentrics to distort the picture--as in the case of that fake Nerfertiti. Also, don't fall for the deceptiveness of the those mulatto depictions of the Greco-Roman era.
Race is no more a social construct than languages are. French and Spanish are much more cognate to each other than Russian is to each, etc.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
If I had to classify them I'd say they were a hybrid of Mediterranean Europeans and the Asiatique of Levant.
Posted by A Habsburg Agenda (Member # 21824) on :
^^^^ In the 21st century BCE which contemporary racial group would you put them in, i.e in plain English?
If you were mugged today by a person looking like an ancient Egyptian the police asked "what colour was he/she?", how would you respond?
Colloquial language PLEASE!!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Wow, I've never heard this topic discussed before
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
I don't classify people solely on skin color. I take into consideration hair texture, skin color and facial phenotype. If ancient Egyptians were walking the Earth today to me they'd look like modern Palestinians. So to answer your question, they'd be identified as "Middle Eastern."
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: ^^^^ In the 21st century BCE which contemporary racial group would you put them in, i.e in plain English?
If you were mugged today by a person looking like an ancient Egyptian the police asked "what colour was he/she?", how would you respond?
Colloquial language PLEASE!!
Posted by Lion (Member # 22807) on :
Black Crytal,This is the illusion of your crazy head. Anyone worthy of justice, in analyzing evidence from ancient Egypt, will note that these Palestinians who are Turks do not look like ancient Egyptians at all.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: I don't classify people solely on skin color. I take into consideration hair texture, skin color and facial phenotype. If ancient Egyptians were walking to Earth today to me they'd look like modern Palestinians. So to answer your question, they'd be identified as "Middle Eastern."
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: ^^^^ In the 21st century BCE which contemporary racial group would you put them in, i.e in plain English?
If you were mugged today by a person looking like an ancient Egyptian the police asked "what colour was he/she?", how would you respond?
Colloquial language PLEASE!!
Posted by Lion (Member # 22807) on :
This id.....
No insults please,
[ 21. July 2018, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Hey Buddy, if you want to believe ancient Egyptians were whatever you think they were then that is your prerogative. I never asked for your approval. So, please, respect my right to exercise my belief on who they were "racially" as well.
quote:Originally posted by Lion: Black Crytal,This is the illusion of your crazy head. Anyone worthy of justice, in analyzing evidence from ancient Egypt, will note that these Palestinians who are Turks do not look like ancient Egyptians at all.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: I don't classify people solely on skin color. I take into consideration hair texture, skin color and facial phenotype. If ancient Egyptians were walking to Earth today to me they'd look like modern Palestinians. So to answer your question, they'd be identified as "Middle Eastern."
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: ^^^^ In the 21st century BCE which contemporary racial group would you put them in, i.e in plain English?
If you were mugged today by a person looking like an ancient Egyptian the police asked "what colour was he/she?", how would you respond?
Colloquial language PLEASE!!
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:I don't classify people solely on skin color. I take into consideration hair texture, skin color and facial phenotype. If ancient Egyptians were walking the Earth today to me they'd look like modern Palestinians. So to answer your question, they'd be identified as "Middle Eastern."
The AEs would disagree with you. They always distinguished themselves from Arabs, Persians, and Europeans.
Greek Scholars Familiar with Egyptians when Greece Conquered Egypta
Herodotus The Egyptians and Nubians are black-skinned and woolly haired. And other passages from his book HISTORIES.
Aristotle(Book: Physiognomica) Too black a hue as an Egyptian or Nubian marks a coward. Same for those who are too white a hue as you see with women. The best color is the intermediate tawny color of the lion. Such a hue marks for courage.
Why are Egyptians and Nubians bandy legged. Is it because of the heat of their countries? Heat bends planks of wood in the same way. The heat has also bended their hair, for it is the curliest of all nations.
Ammianus Mercellinus(Roman Author) Aegypti plerique subfusculi et atrati sunt.
The Egyptians for the most part are very dark(subfusculi) and they wear black clothing.
The very first photo you produced shows they distinguished themselves from Black Africans also. But I noticed you did not add them to the list. Why? In addition in that picture there are three, not two Africans. Why did you omit the Libyan as an African?
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
quote:I don't classify people solely on skin color. I take into consideration hair texture, skin color and facial phenotype. If ancient Egyptians were walking the Earth today to me they'd look like modern Palestinians. So to answer your question, they'd be identified as "Middle Eastern."
The AEs would disagree with you. They always distinguished themselves from Arabs, Persians, and Europeans.
Greek Scholars Familiar with Egyptians when Greece Conquered Egypta
Herodotus The Egyptians and Nubians are black-skinned and woolly haired. And other passages from his book HISTORIES.
Aristotle(Book: Physiognomica) Too black a hue as an Egyptian or Nubian marks a coward. Same for those who are too white a hue as you see with women. The best color is the intermediate tawny color of the lion. Such a hue marks for courage.
Why are Egyptians and Nubians bandy legged. Is it because of the heat of their countries? Heat bends planks of wood in the same way. The heat has also bended their hair, for it is the curliest of all nations.
Ammianus Mercellinus(Roman Author) Aegypti plerique subfusculi et atrati sunt.
The Egyptians for the most part are very dark(subfusculi) and they wear black clothing.
Phony caricature
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
@ Crystal
Your reply clearly shows that you have never traveled to the African continent. People in Africa range from very dark all the way up to olive yellow. Here are some obvious examples.
Dammitt where the Ankhenaten Maasai profile img whenya needit?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
@ Crystal
The Libyan in the caption is not African. Clearly a nomadic migrant from West Asia. same as the Arab settlers in North Africa who entered Africa during the Islamic invasions of North Africa.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Oshun has been a member since 2011 and he made this thread as if he was brand new. I don;t get it. It's been done in tons of threads for years and you can go to topiix and see many more
I am not disputing Africa's phenotype variation. But you are implying that Africa hosts one "racial" type which I totally disagree. If we are discussing this topic within the race context, as set forth by the original poster, then ancient Egyptians were non-Negroid, racially.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: @ Crystal
Your reply clearly shows that you have never traveled to the African continent. People in Africa range from very dark all the way up to olive yellow. Here are some obvious examples.
Are you claiming the Egyptologists, experts in the field, got it wrong and you got it right? What is your field of expertise?
quote:Originally posted by lamin: @ Crystal
The Libyan in the caption is not African. Clearly a nomadic migrant from West Asia. same as the Arab settlers in North Africa who entered Africa during the Islamic invasions of North Africa.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
@lioness: I'm asking this question because posters have been discussing differences in mindset about what they believe to qualify someone to a specific race. To be clear, I'm asking this in response to different threads I'm in. Getting an updated understanding and to see how mindsets may change overtime isn't "wrong."
Questions on the issue of genetics:
According to some on ES: DNA/African ancestry isn't needed to be black (Aboriginals, etc). So if someone looks a certain way they're black? Or is the opinion of blackness rooted more firmly in where one's genetic profile is? And from that perspective, how would you classify them racially?
My other question kind of comes from the Kola Boof stuff. Even if being African, does the prospect of them being mixed make them "non black?" (see Habsburg Agenda's posts on people with mixture saying they're black).
There's also the question of race when thinking of north/south proximities and time, even if your stance is that phenotype is most indicative of race. Does ES think the AE changed in certain areas (genetically or phenotypically) over certain periods or were they racially constant? Do you base your opinions of Egyptian phenotypes over all dynasic phases, and all of Egypt or select times and places?
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] I don't classify people solely on skin color. I take into consideration hair texture, skin color and facial phenotype. If ancient Egyptians were walking the Earth today to me they'd look like modern Palestinians. So to answer your question, they'd be identified as "Middle Eastern."
Honestly If we're going by phenotype, how many Palestinians look like this:
And if they did, then could someone argue "blacks" live in Palestine? To those that have been saying Melanesians/Aboriginals are black (even though they're not African at all), if this guy was middle Eastern and not African by DNA, would he still be black to you?
I think the confusion sets in, when you consider that southern AE encompassed phenotypes that would sort of stand out from the phenotypes in the Middle East we typically think of as brown. Yes there was looser hair in AE, but there was also hair that was much more curly, even kinky. Yes AE had more "elongated" features but there was also some broadness and slight prognathism in earlier periods.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] The very first photo you produced shows they distinguished themselves from Black Africans also. But I noticed you did not add them to the list. Why? In addition in that picture there are three, not two Africans. Why did you omit the Libyan as an African?
Is noticing that they're relatively lighter than their neighbors further south mean they're a different race?
This African American has made comments about the relatively darker skin of this guy:
So if Tariq notices he's lighter than the guy above, does that mean Tariq isn't black, because the guy above is the only way black people can look? You'd be better off using the Faiyum portraits to make your case, honestly.
One other thing. Ancient Libyans varied phenotypically. Some looked like this:
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
@ Crystal
Don't be deceived by the lying and distorting so-called Egyptologists and their fakers in pseudo-genetics. Their very transparent goal from the start has been to push the Arnold Toynbee line. "The only race that has never produced civilization is the African race".
Some cranial data has suggested the presence of elongated features, even if those features aren't perfectly represented by the Amarnas.
[ 22. July 2018, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posted by A Habsburg Agenda (Member # 21824) on :
The matter has already been settled by an image of an Egyptian which currently dominates the Egyptian skyline, an image which was ancient to the Ancient Egyptians themselves.
Egyptology is a discipline whose main rationale is to prove that the ancient Egyptians were not black.
The complexion the ancient Egyptians depicted of themselves in modern days is found mainly in Africans and South Indians. Even the South Indians of today who display such complexions are labelled "Black" by their countrymen,why? Because in terms of complexion they are "Black".
Here are some people whose colour matches those of the ancient Egyptians.
Princess Sikhanyiso Dlamini of Swaziland
Ato Boldon - Isn't his complexion a near perfect match for the Egyptian drawing?
Anwar Sadat - President Mubarak's predecessor. You see an Egyptian looking like the Pharoahs, not that Zawi Hawass would want to admit it.
Terry McMillan
Philip of Hesse - Behind Glass
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: [QB] The matter has already been settled by an image of an Egyptian which currently dominates the Egyptian skyline, an image which was ancient to the Ancient Egyptians themselves.
why are you comparing a sculpture with a broken off nose to a person?
Posted by A Habsburg Agenda (Member # 21824) on :
^^^^ Why shouldn't I? The amount of material broken off the statue is a good indicator of the original width of the nose. Other than the stylized eyes the profile is a good match.
There would even be better matches if a better search was instituted. Note that Sgt Frank Domingo who was hired to compare the profile of the Sphinx with that of Khafre stated in the program that, he had seen women whose profile matched that of the Sphinx and they were black women which in the USA means women of Sub-Saharan African origin.
Would you take the word of bunch of professional speculators known as Egyptologists over the word of person whose profession involves reconstructing faces from degraded and even skeletal remains of human beings?
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
About Egyptian art....
If memory serves me, this guy's funurary mask looks like this
He's represented very different than what looks like. How do we know that most art is representative to feel confident in it's use?
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: Philip of Hesse - Behind Glass
I thought in the other threads, you were saying this type of look isn't really black.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Oshun,
I have commented on how is race measured in another thread. It seems you, exclusively, equate color to race. My understanding is race, as defined today, is measured by three traits:
(1) hair texture (2) skin color (3) facial features
If you look at the image below the artist not only distinguishes the skin color of Egyptian from Black African, the facial phenotype is different (prominent prognathism features only on the Black African), and loose hair that runs behind the ear is present only in three; the the Black African has tightly coiled hair which cannot run behind the ear.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
So these people are what racially?
Many African Americans don't have wooly hair either, though it's common. Still treated like blacks though.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: ^^^^ Why shouldn't I? The amount of material broken off the statue is a good indicator of the original width of the nose. Other than the stylized eyes the profile is a good match.
There would even be better matches if a better search was instituted. Note that Sgt Frank Domingo who was hired to compare the profile of the Sphinx with that of Khafre stated in the program that, he had seen women whose profile matched that of the Sphinx and they were black women which in the USA means women of Sub-Saharan African origin.
Would you take the word of bunch of professional speculators known as Egyptologists over the word of person whose profession involves reconstructing faces from degraded and even skeletal remains of human beings?
This is in terrible condition. The nose could have been wide and long and pointed or it could have been more flat it is impossible to tell.
. Head of King Userkaf Fifth Dynasty, reign of Userkaf Red granite H. 75 cm (29 5/8 in.) Egyptian Museum, Cairo JE 52501
King Menkaura Egyptian Old Kingdom, Dynasty 4 2490–2472 B.C.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
How? You can still see the thick lips,why is that not equally eroded?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: How? You can still see the thick lips,why is that not equally eroded?
Legends have passed over hundreds of years regarding the simple omission in this photograph of the Sphinx and the Pyramid of Khafre, part of the Giza Pyramid (or Great Pyramid) complex in Egypt. Where is the Sphinx’s nose? Many of us have heard the tale that a cannonball fired by Napoleon’s soldiers hit the nose and caused it to break off. Sketches of the Sphinx by the Dane Frederic Louis Norden were created in 1737 and published in 1755, well before the era of Napoleon. However, these drawings illustrate the Sphinx without a nose and clearly contradicts the legend. So what really happened? The Egyptian Arab historian al-Maqrīzī wrote in the 15th century that the nose was actually destroyed by a Sufi Muslim named Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr. In 1378 CE, Egyptian peasants made offerings to the Great Sphinx in the hope of controlling the flood cycle, which would result in a successful harvest. Outraged by this blatant show of devotion, Sa'im al-Dahr destroyed the nose and was later executed for vandalism. Whether this is absolute fact is still debatable.
______________________________
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: How? You can still see the thick lips,why is that not equally eroded?
Legends have passed over hundreds of years regarding the simple omission in this photograph of the Sphinx and the Pyramid of Khafre, part of the Giza Pyramid (or Great Pyramid) complex in Egypt. Where is the Sphinx’s nose? Many of us have heard the tale that a cannonball fired by Napoleon’s soldiers hit the nose and caused it to break off. Sketches of the Sphinx by the Dane Frederic Louis Norden were created in 1737 and published in 1755, well before the era of Napoleon. However, these drawings illustrate the Sphinx without a nose and clearly contradicts the legend. So what really happened? The Egyptian Arab historian al-Maqrīzī wrote in the 15th century that the nose was actually destroyed by a Sufi Muslim named Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr. In 1378 CE, Egyptian peasants made offerings to the Great Sphinx in the hope of controlling the flood cycle, which would result in a successful harvest. Outraged by this blatant show of devotion, Sa'im al-Dahr destroyed the nose and was later executed for vandalism. Whether this is absolute fact is still debatable.
______________________________
The lips are also quite damaged although not as badly as the nose
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
Many African Americans don't have wooly hair either, though it's common. Still treated like blacks though.
post a picture of one pleas that has such hair that has not been permed or styled to look that way
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Obviously they are mix. Also why would you use African American as a standard when there is a percentage of Black Americans with significant mix ancestry?
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So these people are what racially?
Many African Americans don't have wooly hair either, though it's common. Still treated like blacks though.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Since race is more or less a social construct, I decided to ask this here, rather than Egyptology. What race are the Ancient Egyptians? Were they more than one race?
If race is a social construct and society does not give precise ways of measuring it, then it is whatever you feel like
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
Many African Americans don't have wooly hair either, though it's common. Still treated like blacks though.
OR
if you prefer a black person is anybody who is treated like a black person. That means the person who does the treatment defines it, once they treat a person a particular way the person is black
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
People use three metrics to determine race, socially:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Since race is more or less a social construct, I decided to ask this here, rather than Egyptology. What race are the Ancient Egyptians? Were they more than one race?
If race is a social construct and society does not give precise ways of measuring it, then it is whatever you feel like
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
Many African Americans don't have wooly hair either, though it's common. Still treated like blacks though.
OR
if you prefer a black person is anybody who is treated like a black person. That means the person who do the treatment defines it, once they treat a person a particular way the person is black
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] People use three metrics to determine race, socially:
Hair, skin and facial morphology.
There is no standard to measure these things, therefore it's subjective opinion The number of races is not even agreed on
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
Im not ready to fully agree with you that it is subjective as there is a consensus standard and pretty much all official definitions follow this standard (please refer to earlier link I provided). Admittedly an individual is not obligated to follow this standard; however, the standard provided is shared by the majority. If a person sees an East Indian blacker than a thousand nights, still the majority of people would not view this person as racially "black. "
*See below*
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] People use three metrics to determine race, socially:
Hair, skin and facial morphology.
There is no standard to measure these things, therefore it's subjective opinion The number of races is not even agreed on
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Im not ready to fully agree with you that it is subjective as there is a consensus standard and pretty much all official definitions follow this standard (please refer to earlier link I provided). Admittedly an individual is not obligated to follow this standard; however, the standard provided is shared by the majority. If a person sees an East Indian blacker than a thousand nights, still the majority of people would not view this person as racially "black. "
*See below*
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] People use three metrics to determine race, socially:
Hair, skin and facial morphology.
There is no standard to measure these things, therefore it's subjective opinion The number of races is not even agreed on
You started with "three metrics to determine race, socially"
socially is not scientifically and does not regard measurement
Now you have extended the number of traits beyond 3 adding eye color and indicating that there are two traits pertaining to hair not one and adding head size and shape
Your first version
Hair, skin facial morphology.
but now you change to seven traits
skin color hair color hair texture eye color facial morphology. (feature types, nose, lips etc) head size head shape
Now you have 7 considerations
and have provided no standardized way to measure each of these such that it indicates the "white race" or the "black race" and other races of which the number of races, a complete list you haven't even mentioned yet
-and that has no agreed upon standard as well
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
I didnt bother to highlight eye color as majority of people measure race based on the three traits I presented. Even the definition states they are the primary surface traits that guide people to identify the race. see below...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Im not ready to fully agree with you that it is subjective as there is a consensus standard and pretty much all official definitions follow this standard (please refer to earlier link I provided). Admittedly an individual is not obligated to follow this standard; however, the standard provided is shared by the majority. If a person sees an East Indian blacker than a thousand nights, still the majority of people would not view this person as racially "black. "
*See below*
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] People use three metrics to determine race, socially:
Hair, skin and facial morphology.
There is no standard to measure these things, therefore it's subjective opinion The number of races is not even agreed on
You started with "three metrics to determine race, socially"
socially is not scientifically and does not regard measurement
Now you have extended the number of traits beyond 3 adding eye color and indicating that there are two traits pertaining to hair not one and adding head size and shape
Your first version
Hair, skin facial morphology.
but now you change to seven traits
skin color hair color hair texture eye color facial morphology. (feature types, nose, lips etc) head size head shape
Now you have 7 considerations
and have provided no standardized way to measure each of these such that it indicates the "white race" or the "black race" and other races of which the number of races, a complete list you haven't even mentioned yet
-and that has no agreed upon standard as well
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: I didnt bother to highlight eye color as majority of people measure race based on the three traits I presented. Even the definition states they are the primary surface traits that guide people to identify the race. see below...
Again, there is no standard for, determining how many races there are or measuring people to determine what race they are so it doesn't matter what traits you want to list or not list
Oshun says it's a social construct not determined by scientific measurement.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
@ Oshun.
Do the so-called "elongated features" Paul Kagame of Rwanda lead some kind of non-African/black classification?
I wasn't saying blacks couldn't have elongated features. But lets be honest, if we're looking for relative likeness to AE among modern blacks, a Somali would be closer to the average southern AE in appearance than say a Yoruba or Dinka.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Obviously they are mix. Also why would you use African American as a standard when there is a percentage of Black Americans with significant mix ancestry?
Because whether they have mixture with Europeans, Asians, etc. they're still treated as blacks.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Many African Americans don't have wooly hair either, though it's common. Still treated like blacks though.
post a picture of one pleas that has such hair that has not been permed or styled to look that way
"styling" as in what? moisturizers and creams to keep a defined look? Even Egyptians used fats to define their curls. The use of things like that is to help maintain the hair's natural definition does NOT make it a different pattern. I honestly can't tell the difference between weaves and natural hair, so I can only show pictures of blacks with hair like people I know to have been natural (friends, family, etc).
It doesn't normally get THIS loose (among AA)
But AA in the past would call the Somali woman's texture "good hair" while talking about kinky hair as though it was "bad hair." It's thankfully not as socially accepted to say those types of things now (though it still happens). Though, if Egyptians looked like the man in the image above, what race would you consider them?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
Many African Americans don't have wooly hair either, though it's common. Still treated like blacks though.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
I honestly can't tell the difference between weaves and natural hair, so I can only show pictures of blacks with hair like people I know to have been natural (friends, family, etc).
It doesn't normally get THIS loose (among AA)
that's Omarion with a perm
Omarion on the right as a child
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
I already said it wasn't normal for AA to have hair that loose, anyway. But you didn't answer my question either. IF there was someone whose natural features looked like that in ancient times (or modern) what would their race be?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Somalis are sub-Saharan Africans.
Amarna royal DNA is predominantly modern Upper Egyptian and Sudani, peoples who are not in sub-Saharan Africa.
Black is not limited to Africans. Black is not limited to sub-Saharans.
Black is not the new way to say American negroes and their ancestors except for those ignorant of history
Black is not defined by a people who were ashamed to use that word 50 years ago preferring to be negroes and colored people while others world wide used black. But now American negroes, johnny come latelies, want to usurp the term and make pretend to be the only blacks in the world.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
It's not that they believe they're the only blacks. But they're pretty fixated on Sub Saharan Africa as black. Part of its yes Afrocentrism (despite what gains it did offer black Africans), ignorance of OOA diversity and listening to Europeans who say they haven't applied ideas of blackness outside of SSA (despite all evidence otherwise).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Afrocentricity got nothing to do with black North Americans stealing the black descriptor as their own exclusive identity and denying any other non-related people their natural and centuries old usage of black.
Recorded African centered usage of the black descriptor for non West Africans non subSaharan Africans non Africans is old as the 8th century southeast Africans known as the Zanj and included just about everybody east of and at the same latitude as Africa (starting at roughly 10 degrees north).
Peoples of Australia and further east accepted black and used black when African descended North Americans used black to insult each other, often answered by a straight razor.
Now, since Say It Loud I'm Black and I'm Proud y'all want to monopolize an identity you were ashamed of. Go ask your grand and great grandparents some of whom still reject the term black.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Afrocentrism is very relevant. African CENTERED means just that, centering on Africa over other places. Just like EUROcentrism focuses on Europe over other areas. Most AA have no clue about say, a Torres Strait Islander, because they're not AFRICAN. You don't have to look at this and assume I'm saying Afrocentrism was VOID of offering black Africans any gains, but it wasn't flawless in it's approach when reflecting upon the mindsets it created in America.
Let us be honest: in America at least, Sub Saharan Africans are believed to be "more black" than everyone else. That's not an exclusively American problem either, although I don't know to the extent an African centered perspective impacted other places. And even if there is SOME acknowledgement of OOA having similar features or treatment, guess what many start doing? Trying to say Olmecs and other people with "black features" were more recent African migrants. Even if for instance you had a person with black Native American ancestry along with black African ancestry, they would always be "less black" than the blacks with the most African ancestry because many AA don't realize that some OOA peoples were ever treated as blacks. Why don't they know this? Because many in the Afrocentric movement didn't know themselves or didn't think it to be important to discuss non Africans. Honestly, there'd be no reason for all this research to be sliding under the rug to talk about AE and SSA if SSA weren't treated like the end all for blacks when they're not.
quote: Afrocentricity got nothing to do with black North Americans stealing the black descriptor as their own exclusive identity and denying any other non-related people their natural and centuries old usage of black...
...Recorded African centered usage of the black descriptor for non West Africans non subSaharan Africans non Africans is old as the 8th century southeast Africans known as the Zanj and included just about everybody east of and at the same latitude as Africa (starting at roughly 10 degrees north).
AA aren't denying the ability for other blacks to use "black" in the social contexts they created before colonialism. At least not by ignoring (and leaving spaces for) irrelevant criteria and concepts on matters of organized discrimination embedded in white institutions. People who are literally black will likely be discriminated against in such a system true, but it's not limited to literal blackness.
To give you a picture, it's like someone saying they want to "get lit" or "slay" and everyone ignores the person in the room whose still talking about knives and fires. No one's "stealing" their ability to talk about fires and knives, but it's irrelevant to the conversation and will likely be ignored.
Inwardly many of you do understand this too. That's why when people like Black Crystal point out the Egyptians noticed they weren't LITERALLY black like Nubians and would probably not have literally described themselves as black, no one said anything when it was explained Tariq gets shit for being black despite not being literally black in color. No one was giving hell about not using "African" definitions, because it was fairly obvious it has nothing to do with "race" as a systemic and imperialistic construct. If we relied on Egyptians to be literally black in color to call them black, the debate would be over because generally speaking they weren't.
quote: Now, since Say It Loud I'm Black and I'm Proud y'all want to monopolize an identity you were ashamed of. Go ask your grand and great grandparents some of whom still reject the term black.
Whether someone says "negro" or "black" the words mean the exact SAME thing. Saying you prefer a more Latin word to say it over a more germanic word doesn't change that in both instances the color black is being used to describe racial identity.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Instead of private misunderstandings touted as Afrocentric/African-centered one can learn what Afrocentric really is by reading degree holders say the discipline is by perusing the
Encyclopedia of Black Studies.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
I need to know how it's a misunderstanding that many trying to push Afrocentrism in the U.S DON'T focus on non Africans when talking about black history. And even if academics don't do this, to what extent has that had any impact on average people that don't read academic journals? None. Go to the U.S and talk about a Batek, Torres Strait Islander or Adamanese. They won't know what the hell you're talking about.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
If the English word negro means black why is there no negro crayon no negro horse no negro shoelaces but there is a black crayon a black horse black shoelaces?
In English negro was coined to describe enslaved Africans originating from West Africa and later made into an extreme facial type supposedly possessed by the West African sources of English colony enslaved Africans.
Such was greater Guinea. Why was Papua dubbed New Guinea?
Who are your references? From what sources are you building up on? What is your foundation?
You can reject what previous generations of black scholars have to offer but you will never invalidate it nor replace it nor cover it over.
English negro does not equal English black.
i
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You don't know what Afrocentricism is.
Again, you can learn from people who hold a degree in the academic field by perusing the
Encyclopedia of Black Studies
Knuckleheads racialists homophobes supremacists misogynists and the like is what the white mainstream media taught you to believe are Afrocentric.
The Afrocentric paradigm was introduced academically at Temple University in the 1980's for one.
We don't expect 'intellectualism' from the person on the street yet a many one of them know of the Andamans and others from reading Rogers' Sex and Race v1 if they ever did any basic self study.
But are we to limit our knowledge to basic street level now on ES? If so a lot of posts in this thread are irrelevant.
Does your person on the street know what a social construct is? Full genome or STR ancient Egypt DNA is? What elongated features are?
I thought we were dealing on the level of folks with at least rudimentary Africana learnings
But please don't let me spoil your fun. I only wanted to express my simple opinion but had to keep posting to expand on replies to what I said about black in post 50 at top of this pg.
I will shut up now unless replies call for me to expand or clarify.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Unless there's a specific head of a movement, a movement yes, has to kind of be understood by the sum of it's parts. I'll put the shoe on the other foot to hopefully show what I'm saying: The "inellectual" arm of the white supremacist movement will deny their movement to be violent and exploitative. Some will even that they "just want to be allowed pride or to make sure they don't go extinct." But that doesn't match the movements behavioral violence and historical subjugation of black people. It doesn't change that the white pride movement has historically gone beyond discussing white achievement, and disparages other races as sub human. So the followers pushing the movement do not hold to the rhetoric pushed the intellectuals offer the general public. Whether these so-called intellectuals are being deceitful or not is irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] If the English word negro means black why is there no negro crayon no negro horse no negro shoelaces but there is a black crayon a black horse black shoelaces?
Just a second. Negro is not an English word. Negro a Latin word that was borrowed by English speakers to describe blacks (and is still used in Latin speaking countries). Arguing a word is no longer popular (because it has socially been considered offensive and too close to the N-word slur) doesn't prove it meant some other color. The color black was the most common stereotype to negatively depict blacks during a time they used "negro" hence blackface and all the jet black racial caricatures. and jokes involving items that were specifically black like this "n**** milk" "joke"
Why make a baby drink ink instead of milk. Because the baby's status is associated with...
There's no confusion as to what color Negro means despite it's modern lack of use. If you asked an AA what color that represents they would say black.
quote:In English negro was coined to describe enslaved Africans originating from West Africa and later made into an extreme facial type supposedly possessed by the West African sources of English colony enslaved Africans.
But why does it describing Africans mean that the word negro doesn't mean black? It WAS a common color for the imported slaves (hence the stereotype) but not ALL "negroes" were literally that color. the word black also expressed European culture's negative attitudes that were traditionally associated with the color as well. So even for people not literally black, the color became associated with their status.
quote:Such was greater Guinea. Why was Papua dubbed New Guinea?
Again that's another example of using the word BLACK even if not everyone living there is literally black. Just because they use Latin word to say it, doesn't mean the color means something else.
quote:Who are your references? From what sources are you building up on? What is your foundation?
That the word negro means black instead of some other color? A dictionary? Negro has meant black long before slavery. When has Negro meant any color but the color black? And how many of the African groups that AA "stole" the word from even used the English word black to describe themselves?
Whether negro means black to you or not, it doesn't change the main point: That the word black when AA use it is talking about something completely different from a literal descriptor. It has been used to stereotype very dark skin, but it expanded to apply to people much lighter early in the history of systemic racism. People aren't obligated to discuss the word "race" if it has NO systemic and global impact. Not if the word race is being used in a conversation to SPECIFICALLY talk about that system of hate and discrimination. Just the same, a person isn't BAD for refusing to engage in a conversation with someone who talks about knives and fires whenever they say "lit" or "slay." It's TWO different conversations, one is entirely irrelevant to the other.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You avoided this
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If the English word negro means black why is there no negro crayon no negro horse no negro shoelaces but there is a black crayon a black horse black shoelaces?
In English negro was coined to describe enslaved Africans.
If you like let's continue in Kemet where we can fully express ourselves w/o reprimand or having to tip toe around.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:If the English word negro means black why is there no negro crayon
The words are used interchangeably, but it has lost favor like other words in the past have. Black also sounds less like the n-word than negro and many believe the slur to be a corruption of the word negro.
quote:If you like let's continue in Kemet where we can fully express ourselves w/o reprimand or having to tip toe around.
Sure start the thread if you like.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
@Oshun
If I may propose an answer, European anthropologists would have called the above--just on appearance--Polynesian. Such types are found in places like Samoa and Tahiti.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
The word "negro" is a Spanish word meaning "black" since the first slave traders were came from Spain.
The Latin word for black is "niger"--not negro. For the French, the chosen word was "noir" or more pejoratively "negre".
For the Romans, word for people with very dark pigmentation was "Subfusculus". Later blacks were known as "black-a-Moor" or "tawny-Moor" as in Shakespeare's "Othello the Moor". Also used for blacks in premodern times was the "Ethiopian".
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Looking back in history, it's useful to note that anthropologists such as Ripley and Coon wrote books titled "The Races of Europe". They argued that there were 3 races in Europe--Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean.
Add to that the claim that there was a Slavic race and a Hebrew race to refer to Jews. The Nazi argued that the Slavic race was an inferior and the superior race the Ayran race.
Thus racial taxonomies may indeed carry a constructivist content.
Even today, the claim that there are just 3 races--Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid--is patently nonsensical. Yet people are still stupidly brainwashed into these categories.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
use the URL button, these URL's are too long for the thread format making it too wide, thank you
[ 23. July 2018, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
@lamin
Might be really helpful to add some of that stuff here:
Some Egyptsearch members say "black" should mean color alone, thus we have a simple definition not exclusive to people of recent African descent
black person a black person is anyone with a brown skin tone that is not higher than 6
and in assessing this their skin tone is is their natural skin tone not one reliant on tanning by the conditions they are in
*keep in mind crayons and other objects are not color classified this way, since various browns are named
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: [QB] The matter has already been settled by an image of an Egyptian which currently dominates the Egyptian skyline, an image which was ancient to the Ancient Egyptians themselves.
why are you comparing a sculpture with a broken off nose to a person?
Even if it had a nose, would it make a difference?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
Even if it had a nose, would it make a difference?
yes, of course
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Its not that our ancestors were ashamed of the term "Black" (and as far as I know no African Americans denied that we were a "Black" or colored people) its just that at those times AA didnt have access to primary sources and historical resources to know what black entailed prior to the Slave Trade. If anythin it was African Americans who pioneered an idea of Pan-Africanism and Black world wide culture while you Africans were in Africa enslaving and killing each other and licking the sandals of the Invader Arab and Turks, trying all sort of ways to Link yourselves to Non African religious figures and exaggerated "Bidane" Arab Heritages.
To this day its Africans from the North African Berbers and Bidanes who are a shade lighter than the SSA they despise to the Jet black Somali, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Jan-Ja-weed Arabs and Northern Sudanis who proclaim proudly they are not black and at times not even African. The People pushing Afrocentrism and Pan-Africanism are mainly Black Americans while many Africans look at us like we are crazy for upholding such an idea.
No AA in their right mind would say folks like Aboriginal Australians, Dravidians etc many whom are DARKER than majority of us are "Non Black"....they're just no African American and many of those people dont associate nor like AA anyway. Further Most AA would include folks like Bidane, Saharan Berbers, Southern Egyptians etc as black.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Afrocentricity got nothing to do with black North Americans stealing the black descriptor as their own exclusive identity and denying any other non-related people their natural and centuries old usage of black.
Recorded African centered usage of the black descriptor for non West Africans non subSaharan Africans non Africans is old as the 8th century southeast Africans known as the Zanj and included just about everybody east of and at the same latitude as Africa (starting at roughly 10 degrees north).
Peoples of Australia and further east accepted black and used black when African descended North Americans used black to insult each other, often answered by a straight razor.
Now, since Say It Loud I'm Black and I'm Proud y'all want to monopolize an identity you were ashamed of. Go ask your grand and great grandparents some of whom still reject the term black.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
Even if it had a nose, would it make a difference?
yes, of course
where is the side view? Why did you omit it?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
Even if it had a nose, would it make a difference?
yes, of course
where is the side view? Why did you omit it?
Even if I included it would it make a difference?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
Even if it had a nose, would it make a difference?
yes, of course
where is the side view? Why did you omit it?
Even if I included it would it make a difference?
Difference for what? I don't know why you omitted it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Difference for what? I don't know why you omitted it.
[/QB]
look at this Domingo character he's got a video with the side view and it looks African. Then here he has a frontal view and it looks like a European! That is supposed to be a match. I thought you might pick up on this if I separated that front view
Then you look at the two side views where he's comparing to Khafre yet in the left non-Khafre view he has speculated the nose to be a different shape. That could have been how it was or it could have been like Khafre's nose or some other shape.
Yes it does make a difference, to answer your original question
There were pharaohs that had a profile like his left reconstruction and there were other pharaohs who had a profile like Khafre The ancient Egyptians had a wide variety of facial features
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Difference for what? I don't know why you omitted it.
look at this Domingo character he's got a video with the side view and it looks African. Then here he has a frontal view and it looks like a European! That is supposed to be a match. I thought you might pick up on this if I separated that front view
Then you look at the two side views where he's comparing to Khafre yet in the left non-Khafre view he has speculated the nose to be a different shape. That could have been how it was or it could have been like Khafre's nose or some other shape.
Yes it does make a difference, to answer your original question [/QB]
"Then here he has a frontal view and it looks like a European!" the lioness How does it look like a "European"?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: How does it look like a "European"?
wouldn't you say this view looks more like a South European than an African? If not more Middle Eastern than African?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: How does it look like a "European"?
wouldn't you say this view looks more like a South European than an African? If not more Middle Eastern than African?
i say it looks African. what makes you think its European or middle eastern?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the nostrils are too small, the nose is too boxy and squarish. I don't think it matches the side view. In the side view the bottom plane of the nose is also tilted more upward. The distance between the nose and lips tends to be greater in Africans and it's greater in the side view. So while there is some crossover between Africans and Europeans or Middle Easterners, that front view doesn't strike me as "yes that looks particularity African". It's just my opinion but the impression I get is that front view looks 30% African at most
Try this, print out the picture. Cut off with a scissors any outline of the headcloth and beard or edit the image that way.
Then show the picture to various people and ask them "what ethnicity do they think the person is." with no other clues or nothing suggestive in you tone one way or the other Ask five or more people and see what they say
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the nostrils are too small, the nose is too boxy and squarish. I don't think it matches the side view. In the side view the bottom plane of the nose is also tilted more upward. The distance between the nose and lips tends to be greater in Africans and it's greater in the side view. So while there is some crossover between Africans and Europeans or Middle Easterners, that front view doesn't strike me as "yes that looks particularity African". It's just my opinion but the impression I get is that front view looks 30% African at most
Try this, print out the picture. Cut off with a scissors any outline of the headcloth and beard or edit the image that way.
Then show the picture to various people and ask them "what ethnicity do they think the person is." with no other clues or nothing suggestive in you tone one way or the other Ask five or more people and see what they say
The lips are a dead give away for its African origin.(The upper lip is too pronounced to be European) Many Africans have a nose like the one depicted above. (perhaps the white and light color of the eyes is confusing you)
Posted by Before Chrisna (Member # 22932) on :
Oshun, I appreciate your question. I believe that Iamin gave some great thoughts and pictorial evidence to support his answer. Thank you both!
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
They would have went from black to mulatto.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
@ LIONESS,
You fail to understand that phenotypical variation is one of the characteristics of African populations. The only near constant would be the African hair form.
The sketch of the Sphinx above is not accurate. This is just another instance of the bad habit that Europeans have of portraying the AEs not as they were but "whitened" up a bit.
The sketch of that Sphinx is off because the actual Sphinx has a broader and shorter face with high cheekbones.
Prognathism is found in Africa but also on East Asia. But even so, it's less than 15% in Africa.
@Fourty2Tribes. I wouldn't include the Canaanites. Plenty depictions of them are dark-skinned. And the Arabs got progressively lighter over the past millenia also.
At least, that's what I've gotten from past threads.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
I'm sure there were melinated people among all the invaders, even the brits. Its a matter of percentage. The same is true genetically. Most of the genetic markers and haplos were probably already in Egypt. Invaders brought a different mix of much of the same.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
But here's how the Africans(AEs and Nubians) depicted themselves compared to the invaders.
The original picture is at the bottom of that page.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QB] But here's how the Africans(AEs and Nubians) depicted themselves compared to the invaders.
lamin do you know how to post an image?
above Rameses smiting invaders, a Nubian, Syrian and Libyan
This is how ancient Egypt portrayed themselves, as can be seen in the Book of Gates rendition; with text that reads RMTYW (Remetu, ie Egyptians) although the garb is NHSW (Nehesi, ie 'Nubian').
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Images take up space.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QB] But here's how the Africans(AEs and Nubians) depicted themselves compared to the invaders.
lamin do you know how to post an image?
above Rameses smiting invaders, a Nubian, Syrian and Libyan
This is how ancient Egypt portrayed themselves, as can be seen in the Book of Gates rendition; with text that reads RMTYW (Remetu, ie Egyptians) although the garb is NHSW (Nehesi, ie 'Nubian').
so this is not how the Egyptians^ portrayed themselves?
Posted by AshaT (Member # 22658) on :
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by AshaT:
I know, it’s sad isn’t it? She / he is showing a grown man who’s mistreating little children.
Funny how they named the URL, not smiting Syrian or Libyan.
Guinea did not mean black as applied to skin color.
It meant woman/women in Susu language, and is part of the vaGINa@English/GIN@Dharug, Australia/reGENerate etc.
However it is linked to both black soil and post-pubertal women, because it refers to fertility.
It is related to KeMeT (Anc. Egypt) and Bantu terms for black/rich farmland, and implies plentiful water.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: This is how ancient Egypt portrayed themselves, as can be seen in the Book of Gates rendition; with text that reads RMTYW (Remetu, ie Egyptians) although the garb is NHSW (Nehesi, ie 'Nubian').
Has it occurred to anyone that they might be Egyptianized Kushites? As in, ethnically Kushite dudes who assimilated into the Egyptian nationality?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Man and Men of Men are different concepts.
The given Gate of Teka Hra scene 30 of Rmtyw are Egyptians. Compare profiles with the Nhsw of same tomb chamber.
Most importantly, this is a one-off edition differing from the usual red-black complexion.
Can't totally discount the possibility they're "nationalized". Consider their Nhsy attire. Was this tomb's Pharaoh particularly intertwined with Nubia/Kush? I mean wives, ministers, architectural projects, diplomacies, etc.
One thing though. Here we see very Nehesy looking Rt Rmt. Where are Aamu or Temehu looking Rt Rmt in any authentic painting of this very same scene? Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
The given Gate of Teka Hra scene 30 of Rmtyw are Egyptians. Compare profiles with the Nhsw of same tomb chamber.
What Nhsw of same the tomb chamber?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Lemme amplify the Ramesses Egyptian and Nehesian Denkmaeler facs. I'll add the Merenptah Egyptian up front for comparison. Compare and contrast foreheads, eyes, ears, nose slopes, lips, and chins.
Tomb photos posted like a decade ago are low def. Left Egyptian. Right Nehesian. Below 3 Nehesians. Courtesy of Manu Ampim. ben Jochannan has b&w photos of all four peoples. They're on pp 391-2 of the Blackman of the Nile and his Family oversize edition. He conjectures the Rt Rmt are Rameses III's relatives.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Huh? It was you showed 'em here, eh?
Lemme amplify the Ramesses Egyptian and Nehesian Denkmaeler facs. I'll add the Seti Egyptian up front for comparison. Compare and contrast foreheads, eyes, ears, nose slopes, lips, and chins.
^this brown head at left is apparently a facsimile of the tomb of Merenptah , the two at right, colored black, Nehesy from the tomb of Rameses III
.
So the above does not correspond to this book cover with the facsimile of Ramses III, Book of gates, KV11 where there is no such difference to amplify
.
.
And if we look at other images of Egyptians from the same KV11 Ramses III tomb>
We see the other figures of Egyptians in that same Ramses KV11 tomb are brown like that left head in the facsimile at top and also brown in the similar Seti I book of gates scenes. Then it would be inconsistent with all of that context to assume that jet black figures in Nubian garb in the 5th hour scene at Ramses III are Egyptians solely based on the rmt glyph
.
.
Additionally we this reference stating that the term rmtw once exclusive to Egyptians, that it is completely clear that by the 18th Dynasty it was also applied to foreign prisoners also
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Fuckery, just as anticipated. Lying about where the drawn heads originate.
O. I already accurately labeled the two at right. Only far right is a Nehesi. At left and center are Egyptians. The two black skinned are the ones on Diops cover.
Like when I posted it over a decade ago, when I posted all available paintings of scene 30, Merenptah's brown skinned Egyptian and Ramesses black skinned Egyptian have nearly the same profile. Ramesses' Nehesian's profile is unlike theirs.
All three are on the same Denkmaeler plate. Originally posted 24 March 2007 by me.
Only serious comments and replies will get a reply. I don't have time for lying stealing bullshitters. Will gladly field any who want to discuss and learn.
I ask responsible administration how they expect people to learn anything while allowing their pet troll to shit on the facts.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Huh? It was you showed 'em here, eh?
Lemme amplify the Ramesses Egyptian and Nehesian Denkmaeler facs. I'll add the Seti Egyptian up front for comparison. Compare and contrast foreheads, eyes, ears, nose slopes, lips, and chins.
^this brown head at left is apparently a facsimile of the tomb of Merenptah , the two at right, colored black, Nehesy from the tomb of Rameses III
.
So the above does not correspond to this book cover with the facsimile of Ramses III, Book of gates, KV11 where there is no such difference to amplify
You misconstrued what I wrote here and have a different interpretation than I do.
As I properly stated and figured out but you did not label the location of, the head at left is from the tomb of Merenptah. As I properly stated the two other heads are from Rameses III
When I said " the above does not correspond to this book cover with the facsimile of Rameses III" was not that they are not the same heads from Diop's book cover showing Rameses III, what I meant was that the skin color of these jet black two heads from Rameses III does not correspond to the Egyptian brown color head from Merenptah.
And additionally to suggest that one of these black color heads is an Egyptian does not correspond internally to the brown color of other Egyptians within the same Rameses III tomb
So again here:
The top row, from Merenptah were there is a brown skinned Egyptians does not correspond to the bottom row from Rameses III where there are two black skinned figures wearing the exact same Nehesy garb
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
"you did not label the location of, the head at left is from the tomb of Merenptah."
Liar.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Huh? It was you showed 'em here, eh?
Lemme amplify the Ramesses Egyptian and Nehesian Denkmaeler facs. I'll add the Merenptah Egyptian up front for comparison. Compare and contrast foreheads, eyes, ears, nose slopes, lips, and chins.
"so the above does not correspond to this book cover with the facsimile of Ramses III, Book of gates, KV11 where there is no such difference to amplify"
Fuckery
I said the Merenptah head is there for comparison. Something you still avoid and continue distracting away from, the comparison. The Ramesses heads are different. Amplification applies to image size. Amplifying (zooming) makes comparison easier.
The text on sarcophagi and tomb walls confirm Rt Rmt (men of men) only applies to Egyptians.
Anyone want to continue with this I opened a thread on Egyptology. I will only post more about it there for anyone truly interested in the facts.
This subject matter doesn't belong in this forum. Back when I exhaustively presented the Gate of Teka Hra scene 30 starting in 2004 there was no deshret forum. I didn't do the research and translation for what Wally called the dogpatch forum. I did it for the Ancient Egypt & Egyptology forum.
That forum split to seperate legitimate content from race bait and pseudoscience. It's not my fault Sammi or whoever moved stuff around.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
At last look I concluded three of the Ramesses ethnic subscenes appear mistaken. Their labels do not match their norm depictions in other Gate of Teka Hra scene 30 tomb paintings.
yes, Either the artists or scribes doing the wall glyphs at Rameses III were fuk ups.
But who would know after they sealed the tomb?
Posted by Lion (Member # 22807) on :
Do not you get tired of embarrassing yourself? Everyone knows that your image does not exist in any temple in ancient Egypt, it's just an imagination of a lying white person like you.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Oshun,
I have commented on how is race measured in another thread. It seems you, exclusively, equate color to race. My understanding is race, as defined today, is measured by three traits:
(1) hair texture (2) skin color (3) facial features
If you look at the image below the artist not only distinguishes the skin color of Egyptian from Black African, the facial phenotype is different (prominent prognathism features only on the Black African), and loose hair that runs behind the ear is present only in three; the the Black African has tightly coiled hair which cannot run behind the ear.
Posted by GamboGreek (Member # 22910) on :
It is obvious the Ancient Egyptians are black
Posted by GamboGreek (Member # 22910) on :
Byzantine depiction of the Egyptians Posted by GamboGreek (Member # 22910) on :
More Byzantine art depicting the Egyptians as black people
Octateuch Bible fol. 65 v: Joseph, wearing a crown, gives audience to three black Egyptians. Byzantine (c. 1000) Illumination on Parchment,
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
They would be like the modern egyptians and more specifically copts.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: They would be like the modern egyptians and more specifically copts.
this is a piece of art, what is your interpretation of the what type of people they resemble
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: They would be like the modern egyptians and more specifically copts.
this is a piece of art, what is your interpretation of the what type of people they resemble
Do you really think that all artists at that time visited egypt or met some egyptians ? probably no they just represented what they thought an egyptian was.
Now I can ask you the same question about how egyptians from the old empire represented themselves :
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: They would be like the modern egyptians and more specifically copts.
this is a piece of art, what is your interpretation of the what type of people they resemble
Do you really think that all artists at that time visited egypt or met some egyptians ? probably no they just represented what they thought an egyptian was.
Now I can ask you the same question about how egyptians from the old empire represented themselves :
You have some explaining to do.
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 [...]
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"
--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology)
quote:"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
quote: "Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia."
(p. 10)
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: They would be like the modern egyptians and more specifically copts.
this is a piece of art, what is your interpretation of the what type of people they resemble
Do you really think that all artists at that time visited egypt or met some egyptians ? probably no they just represented what they thought an egyptian was.
Now I can ask you the same question about how egyptians from the old empire represented themselves :
Secondly, it’s quite remarkable because Romans actually witnessed first hand the people of the Fezzan. So to fantasize here that they didn’t know what the locals looked like is merely hilarious.
quote:The Garamantes flourished in southwestern Libya, in the core of the Sahara Desert ~3,000 years ago and largely controlled trans-Saharan trade. Their biological affinities to other North African populations, including the Egyptian, Algerian, Tunisian and Sudanese, roughly contemporary to them, are examined by means of cranial nonmetric traits using the Mean Measure of Divergence and Mahalanobis D(2) distance. The aim is to shed light on the extent to which the Sahara Desert inhibited extensive population movements and gene flow. Our results show that the Garamantes possess distant affinities to their neighbors. This relationship may be due to the Central Sahara forming a barrier among groups, despite the archaeological evidence for extended networks of contact. The role of the Sahara as a barrier is further corroborated by the significant correlation between the Mahalanobis D(2) distance and geographic distance between the Garamantes and the other populations under study. In contrast, no clear pattern was observed when all North African populations were examined, indicating that there was no uniform gene flow in the region.
--Nikita E, Mattingly D, Lahr MM.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012 Feb;147(2):280-92. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21645. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
Sahara: Barrier or corridor? Nonmetric cranial traits and biological affinities of North African late Holocene populations.
Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge, UK.
quote:The Garamantes flourished in southwestern Libya, in the core of the Sahara Desert ~3,000 years ago and largely controlled trans-Saharan trade.
Their biological affinities to other North African populations, including the Egyptian, Algerian, Tunisian and Sudanese, roughly contemporary to them, are examined by means of cranial nonmetric traits using the Mean Measure of Divergence and Mahalanobis D(2) distance.
--Nikita E, Mattingly D, Lahr MM. et al.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012 Feb;147(2):280-92. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21645. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
Sahara: Barrier or corridor? Nonmetric cranial traits and biological affinities of North African late Holocene populations.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: They would be like the modern egyptians and more specifically copts.
this is a piece of art, what is your interpretation of the what type of people they resemble
Do you really think that all artists at that time visited egypt or met some egyptians ? probably no they just represented what they thought an egyptian was.
Now I can ask you the same question about how egyptians from the old empire represented themselves :
Egyptians didn't always represent themselves accurately either. Just compare reconstructions of Khnum-Nakht and Nakht-Ankh to their sarcophagus.
Also: You guys always take pictures and samples from northern Egyptians and make them representative of Egypt when the civilization came from the south. Older Egyptologists reasoned this by (wrongly) arguing their civilization came from northern Egypt, but today there's no excuse. People that truly would've looked like this were absorbed into the lands ruled to the south. That is how they became "Egyptians" but the culture didn't come from them. Royalty was also notorious for mixing with outsiders. People that appeared this way likely descended (partially) from southern Egyptians but were also mixed with northern coastal people. Craniometric comparisons seems to suggest the southerners looked like Ethiopians--not just the elongated ones.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ They basically became the first Egyptian biracials. lol
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: They would be like the modern egyptians and more specifically copts.
this is a piece of art, what is your interpretation of the what type of people they resemble
Do you really think that all artists at that time visited egypt or met some egyptians ? probably no they just represented what they thought an egyptian was.
Now I can ask you the same question about how egyptians from the old empire represented themselves :
You have some explaining to do.
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 [...]
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"
--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology)
quote:"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
quote: "Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia."
(p. 10)
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
All your studies are outdated or made by afrocentrists. I have more objective sources :
"The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it is a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone."
Manilius, Astronomica 4.724
Here we can see a clear distinction between "aethiops" a term used for black people and "aegyptos"
"The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically."
Arrian, Indica 6.9
Same situation here
"As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians."
Strabo, Geography 15.1.13
"Black people resided not in the Nile valley but in a far land, by the fountain of the sun."
Xenpohanes (Hesoid, works and says, 527-8)
he's more than explicit here.
but let's go back to science : "The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World.We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations" Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
so in short a caucasoid population.
French forensic anthropologist Jean-Noël Vignal determined the basic measurements and features of Tutankhamun's face. Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples.
same results here
"The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal "ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times."Schuenemann et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods". Nature Communications, 2017
I also have the haplogroups of the 90 mummies of abusir and none of them show ssa haplogroups :
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
Also here some reconstructions :
[ 20. June 2019, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
A.... forumbiodiversity. What are the dates and ages of those remains you just posted?? Or do you not know because you dumped these images from another thread? Craniometric comparisons generally put southern Egyptians with Ethiopians and Nubians. It also doesn't help that many of these reconstructions are a lot lighter in complexion than they probably would've been in real life.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: A.... forumbiodiversity. What are the dates and ages of those remains you just posted?? Or do you not know because you dumped these images from another thread? Craniometric comparisons generally put southern Egyptians with Ethiopians and Nubians. It also doesn't help that many of these reconstructions are a lot lighter in complexion than they probably would've been in real life.
Yeah darker ...that's why they look like modern egyptians.
We have also the reconstruction of Ramses II made by JAPANESE scientist of the university of kanagawa ( so people here won't say it's made by eurocentrists) :
also about his skin color : "Ramses II was a leucoderm (white-skinned), Mediterranean-type close to that of the African Berbers." Conclusions of the study of Ramses II's mummy at the Musée de l'Homme in Paris in 1976-1977
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Problems with reconstructions is that it's not always accurate, I was reading on the two brothers above, and one thing discussed with the prognathism in one of the brothers that is well represented in one reconstruction, but is more overlooked in the other. Other reconstructions admit to making the skin a certain pigment against what would've been historically accurate.Some of these with a different texture of hair and/or skin color would've looked Black.
Ignoring that, quite of few of these have no specific origin we could likely place them--and yes that is quite important. Some like Nebiri were found in the valley of the queen's, but he probably was born elsewhere. Also, they are younger mummies, typically dating after the New Kingdom when a surge of coastal/Near Eastern type skulls can be said making their way into Upper Egypt. Let's use this one as an example:
"Davey estimates she lived sometime between 1500 BCE and 331 BCE, and the fine linen of her bandages suggests that the woman was likely from a family of high status...With the 3D-printed skull as the base, the flesh was filled in using a series of markers that indicate how deep the tissue likely was at key points around the face, based on generalized data of the population of modern Egypt."
quote:Meritamun was identified as ancient Egyptian by Dr Janet Davey, a forensic Egyptologist from Monash University who is based at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, where the head was scanned. She jumped at the opportunity to study the head further, and at the Institute she had a wealth of forensic expertise on which to call.
The don't seem especially sure where she came from, just that she came from somewhere in Egypt, although they suspect her origin was most likely from...the Delta region.
quote:In Meritamun’s case, it may have been caused by malaria parasites such as malaria or the flatworm infection schistosomiasis, both of which would have been hazards in the Nile Delta in ancient times.
....And this is why it's important to understand the context of an image before you dump it online and declare it representative of southern Ancient Egyptians that founded the country. Only in AE do the descendants of foreigners and the mixed offspring they produced with subjugated peoples absorbed in the country become more representative than the people who founded it.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: A.... forumbiodiversity. What are the dates and ages of those remains you just posted?? Or do you not know because you dumped these images from another thread? Craniometric comparisons generally put southern Egyptians with Ethiopians and Nubians. It also doesn't help that many of these reconstructions are a lot lighter in complexion than they probably would've been in real life.
Yeah darker ...that's why they look like modern egyptians.
We have also the reconstruction of Ramses II made by JAPANESE scientist of the university of kanagawa ( so people here won't say it's made by eurocentrists) :
also about his skin color : "Ramses II was a leucoderm (white-skinned), Mediterranean-type close to that of the African Berbers." Conclusions of the study of Ramses II's mummy at the Musée de l'Homme in Paris in 1976-1977
RameseS II was born in 1300 BC. Ramses II was of Delta origin:
quote:Because his family’s home was in the Nile River delta, and in order to have a convenient base for campaigns in Asia, Ramses built for himself a full-scale residence city called Per Ramessu (“House of Ramses”; biblical Raamses), which was famous for its beautiful layout, with gardens, orchards, and pleasant waters. Each of its four quarters had its own presiding deity: Amon in the west, Seth in the south, the royal cobra goddess, Wadjet, in the north, and, significantly, the Syrian goddess Astarte in the east. A vogue for Asian deities had grown up in Egypt, and Ramses himself had distinct leanings in that direction.
quote:At some point, prior to the year 1275 BCE, he began construction of his great city Per-Ramesses ("House of Ramesses") in the Eastern Delta region near to the older city of Avaris.
...What do we know about the Delta? The predynastic cultures of the Delta were originally distinct from southern Egypt. That they were phenotypically closer the "Mediterranean" phenotype and modern Egyptians compared to their more "Ethiopian" conquerors. Then the Dela was overrun by Asiatic foreigners centuries before he was born. Many of them intermarried with native Egyptians, at all levels of social class and their offspring often identified as Egyptian and were accepted as such. In fact it is intermarriage with immigrants that seemed to be more influential to the rise of hyksos rulers than an outright bloody coup. There wasn't much resistance, because Asiatics had been marrying into nobility for centuries before it happened. The mass migration started as the Sahara was growing even drier at around 2000 BC and they extended their rule and influences from the Delta down to to Aysut by 1500 B.C. And Avaris? That was was the Asiatic capital.
To put it simply: Rameses II is probably a poor historical choice to represent southern Egypt as he was likely mixed with coastal Egyptians and Asiatics. And even if he was of Native southern Egyptian ancestry, the time period he was born in makes it more likely to get mixed results. Egyptologists reviewing crania have mentioned that the coastal type of Egyptian become more representative of upper Egypt in the new Kingdom, a period Rameses II belongs to. Like I said, comparing the general population of southern Egyptians that would've founded Egypt, they tend to appear more like Ethiopians and Nubians while northern/coastal Egyptians more likely to represent the country appeared to resemble Nubians and Ethiopians less.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Problems with reconstructions is that it's not always accurate, I was reading on the two brothers above, and one thing discussed with the prognathism in one of the brothers that is well represented in one reconstruction, but is more overlooked in the other. Other reconstructions admit to making the skin a certain pigment against what would've been historically accurate.Some of these with a different texture of hair and/or skin color would've looked Black.
Ignoring that, quite of few of these have no specific origin we could likely place them--and yes that is quite important. Some like Nebiri were found in the valley of the queen's, but he probably was born elsewhere. Also, they are younger mummies, typically dating after the New Kingdom when a surge of coastal/Near Eastern type skulls can be said making their way into Upper Egypt. Let's use this one as an example:
"Davey estimates she lived sometime between 1500 BCE and 331 BCE, and the fine linen of her bandages suggests that the woman was likely from a family of high status...With the 3D-printed skull as the base, the flesh was filled in using a series of markers that indicate how deep the tissue likely was at key points around the face, based on generalized data of the population of modern Egypt."
quote:Meritamun was identified as ancient Egyptian by Dr Janet Davey, a forensic Egyptologist from Monash University who is based at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, where the head was scanned. She jumped at the opportunity to study the head further, and at the Institute she had a wealth of forensic expertise on which to call.
The don't seem especially sure where she came from, just that she came from somewhere in Egypt, although they suspect her origin was most likely from...the Delta region.
quote:In Meritamun’s case, it may have been caused by malaria parasites such as malaria or the flatworm infection schistosomiasis, both of which would have been hazards in the Nile Delta in ancient times.
....And this is why it's important to understand the context of an image before you dump it online and declare it representative of southern Ancient Egyptians that founded the country. Only in AE do the descendants of foreigners and the mixed offspring they produced with subjugated peoples absorbed in the country become more representative than the people who founded it.
It's not about which reconstruction is the most well made but about the fact that all these reconstructions show caucasoid features and none of them show negroid/bantus features.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Here's another problem I have with you guys. You create ideas like "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" when people can be treated as Black and have Caucasoid features. "Negroid" and Caucasoid are not races. Black and White are races. And Black people can have features you describe as "Caucasoid." Also many of these reconstructions are like I said:
-younger AE (born after periods of mass immigration) -northerners who didn't found Egypt. -Egyptians that have NO discernible origin.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: A.... forumbiodiversity. What are the dates and ages of those remains you just posted?? Or do you not know because you dumped these images from another thread? Craniometric comparisons generally put southern Egyptians with Ethiopians and Nubians. It also doesn't help that many of these reconstructions are a lot lighter in complexion than they probably would've been in real life.
Yeah darker ...that's why they look like modern egyptians.
We have also the reconstruction of Ramses II made by JAPANESE scientist of the university of kanagawa ( so people here won't say it's made by eurocentrists) :
also about his skin color : "Ramses II was a leucoderm (white-skinned), Mediterranean-type close to that of the African Berbers." Conclusions of the study of Ramses II's mummy at the Musée de l'Homme in Paris in 1976-1977
RameseS II was born in 1300 BC. Ramses II was of Delta origin:
quote:Because his family’s home was in the Nile River delta, and in order to have a convenient base for campaigns in Asia, Ramses built for himself a full-scale residence city called Per Ramessu (“House of Ramses”; biblical Raamses), which was famous for its beautiful layout, with gardens, orchards, and pleasant waters. Each of its four quarters had its own presiding deity: Amon in the west, Seth in the south, the royal cobra goddess, Wadjet, in the north, and, significantly, the Syrian goddess Astarte in the east. A vogue for Asian deities had grown up in Egypt, and Ramses himself had distinct leanings in that direction.
quote:At some point, prior to the year 1275 BCE, he began construction of his great city Per-Ramesses ("House of Ramesses") in the Eastern Delta region near to the older city of Avaris.
...What do we know about the Delta? The predynastic cultures of the Delta were originally distinct from southern Egypt. That they were phenotypically closer the "Mediterranean" phenotype and modern Egyptians compared to their more "Ethiopian" conquerors. Then the Dela was overrun by Asiatic foreigners centuries before he was born. Many of them intermarried with native Egyptians, at all levels of social class and their offspring often identified as Egyptian and were accepted as such. In fact it is intermarriage with immigrants that seemed to be more influential to the rise of hyksos rulers than an outright bloody coup. There wasn't much resistance, because Asiatics had been marrying into nobility for centuries before it happened. The mass migration started as the Sahara was growing even drier at around 2000 BC and they extended their rule and influences from the Delta down to to Aysut by 1500 B.C. And Avaris? That was was the Asiatic capital.
To put it simply: Rameses II is probably a poor historical choice to represent southern Egypt as he was likely mixed with coastal Egyptians and Asiatics. And even if he was of Native southern Egyptian ancestry, the time period he was born in makes it more likely to get mixed results. Like I said, comparing the general population of southern Egyptians that would've founded Egypt, they tend to appear more like Ethiopians and Nubians while northern/coastal Egyptians more likely to represent the country appeared to resemble Nubians and Ethiopians less.
What evidence do you have that upper egyptians looked like "ethiopians" ? Because all the archeological documents show the opposite. Also why would a upper egyptian be more important than a lower egyptian ? I can say that upper egyptians mixed too much with melanoderm populations so they are maybe not a good representation of Ancient egyptians....maybe lower egyptians were far more numerous that upper egyptians and this situation seem to be the same today with a high density in lower egypt.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Here's another problem I have with you guys. You create ideas like "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" when people can be treated as Black and have Caucasoid features. "Negroid" and Caucasoid are not races. Black and White are races. And Black people can have features you describe as "Caucasoid."
No by negroid here I mean people like west and central africans or like dark skinned aframs.
something like this : "These include a broad and round nasal cavity; no dam or nasal sill; Quonset hut-shaped nasal bones; notable facial projection in the jaw and mouth area (prognathism); a rectangular-shaped palate; a square or rectangular eye orbit shape; a large interorbital distance; a more undulating supraorbital ridge; and large teeth"
Also stop lying the great majority of the mummies i posted were very old and predate the hyksos invasion.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Nassbean I removed pictures from your reconstructions posts -too big for the forum format please re-size before posting
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Here's another problem I have with you guys. You create ideas like "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" when people can be treated as Black and have Caucasoid features. "Negroid" and Caucasoid are not races. Black and White are races. And Black people can have features you describe as "Caucasoid."
No by negroid here I mean people like west and central africans or like dark skinned aframs.
something like this : "These include a broad and round nasal cavity; no dam or nasal sill; Quonset hut-shaped nasal bones; notable facial projection in the jaw and mouth area (prognathism); a rectangular-shaped palate; a square or rectangular eye orbit shape; a large interorbital distance; a more undulating supraorbital ridge; and large teeth"
1) Can you stop it with the excessive large images. It doesn’t give your post more credibility or validation.
2) What is outdated about the papers?
3) Who is “Afrocentric”?
4) Would it matter if someone is Afrocentric? The study is called Africana.
By “negroid”, you mean this?
quote: One of Amenhotep III’s greatest building achievements was the Temple of Amun, now in modern day Luxor.
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: [QUOTE]What evidence do you have that upper egyptians looked like "ethiopians" ? Because all the archeological documents show the opposite. Also why would a upper egyptian be more important than a lower egyptian ? I can say that upper egyptians mixed too much with melanoderm populations so they are maybe not a good representation of Ancient egyptians....maybe lower egyptians were far more numerous that upper egyptians and this situation seem to be the same today with a high density in lower egypt.
Lower Egyptians were not more numerous. The Delta became more populated the longer Egypt existed as a state. and even if they were so what? You don't classify Rhodesia as an example of a Black civilization just because Blacks were the majority.
Yes you could argue southern Egyptians mixed with darker populations like the Nubians. The problem is that Nubians were of the same cultural complex. Ta Seti was a predynastic kingdom that extended into Sudan before it was absorbed into Egypt. However Ta Seti and the other southern kingdoms were of similar culture and splendor before they either married into Egyptian society or got taken over. The Lower Egyptians were not of the same culture as the kingdoms of Hierakonopolis, Ta Seti and Abydos. And to hear white authors tell it, they were less technologically advanced than their southern conquerors. Trying to argue that this group was just as central to the founding of Egyptian state would be like making Aboriginals representative to the founding of the state of Australia. I mean I guess if you want to go ahead but then Blacks can by that reasoning discuss the United States, Australia, Rhodesia and a bunch of other white civilizations to be examples of Black or colored civilization.
Upper Egyptians (UEG) are closer to Nubians and Ethiopians. Hierakonopolis was closeest to Ethiopians as well. Meanwhile Lower Egyptians LEU are closer to Europeans (EUR) and the Maghreb (MAG). Irish attempts to distance the Ethiopians and Nubians from other Africans by pooling all other Sub Saharan Africans as ("SAF"). Upon further review, his samples lacked Horners and other Eastern Africans. It took a lot of sampling from fairly distant locations like Western Africa (which surprise, most of us aren't arguing lived in AE). Still, for anyone with a working brain, you know where Ethiopia is on a map and know what these researchers mean by "Nubia."
Even the older (and more overtly racist) Egyptologists were more open to acknowledging the Ethiopian appearances of southern Egypt, which they originally thought owed their culture to the north. There was probably some portions of upper Egypt that characterized this less so, but they were likely the result of mixing with lower Egypt.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: [QUOTE]What evidence do you have that upper egyptians looked like "ethiopians" ? Because all the archeological documents show the opposite. Also why would a upper egyptian be more important than a lower egyptian ? I can say that upper egyptians mixed too much with melanoderm populations so they are maybe not a good representation of Ancient egyptians....maybe lower egyptians were far more numerous that upper egyptians and this situation seem to be the same today with a high density in lower egypt.
Lower Egyptians were not more numerous. The Delta became more populated the longer Egypt existed as a state. and even if they were so what? You don't classify Rhodesia as an example of a Black civilization just because Blacks were the majority.
Yes you could argue southern Egyptians mixed with darker populations like the Nubians. The problem is that Nubians were of the same cultural complex. Ta Seti was a predynastic kingdom that extended into Sudan before it was absorbed into Egypt. However Ta Seti and the other southern kingdoms were of similar culture and splendor before they either married into Egyptian society or got taken over. The Lower Egyptians were not of the same culture as the kingdoms of Hierakonopolis, Ta Seti and Abydos. And to hear white authors tell it, they were less technologically advanced than their southern conquerors. Trying to argue that this group was just as central to the founding of Egyptian state would be like making Aboriginals representative to the founding of the state of Australia. I mean I guess if you want to go ahead but then Blacks can by that reasoning discuss the United States, Australia, Rhodesia and a bunch of other white civilizations to be examples of Black or colored civilization.
Upper Egyptians (UEG) are closer to Nubians and Ethiopians. Hierakonopolis was closeest to Ethiopians as well. Meanwhile Lower Egyptians LEU are closer to Europeans (EUR) and the Maghreb (MAG). Irish attempts to distance the Ethiopians and Nubians from other Africans by pooling all other Sub Saharan Africans as ("SAF"). Upon further review, his samples lacked Horners and other Eastern Africans. It took a lot of sampling from fairly distant locations like Western Africa (which surprise, most of us aren't arguing lived in AE). Still, for anyone with a working brain, you know where Ethiopia is on a map and know what these researchers mean by "Nubia."
Even the older racist Egyptologists acknowledged the Ethiopian appearances of southern Egypt, which they originally thought owed their culture to the north.
Again what are your evidence that the delta was less populated than upper egypt? Especially that we know that lower egypt is extremely fertile and big compared to the small Nile valley of southern egypt. Moreover yes nubians were of the same cultural complex but simply because they were influenced by egypt and not the other way around and don't exaggerate pls nubians were almost always viewed as ennemies by AEs it's not a coincidence if they represented them like this :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Again what are your evidence that the delta was less populated than upper egypt? Especially that we know that lower egypt is extremely fertile and big compared to the small Nile valley of southern egypt. Moreover yes nubians were of the same cultural complex but simply because they were influenced by egypt and not the other way around and don't exaggerate pls nubians were almost always viewed as ennemies by AEs it's not a coincidence if they represented them like this :
It’s quite remarkable how you post all that old data. lol
Why does it count now?
And what samples did they use and from where?
Please post the source, don’t be childish.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Here's another problem I have with you guys. You create ideas like "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" when people can be treated as Black and have Caucasoid features. "Negroid" and Caucasoid are not races. Black and White are races. And Black people can have features you describe as "Caucasoid."
No by negroid here I mean people like west and central africans or like dark skinned aframs.
something like this : "These include a broad and round nasal cavity; no dam or nasal sill; Quonset hut-shaped nasal bones; notable facial projection in the jaw and mouth area (prognathism); a rectangular-shaped palate; a square or rectangular eye orbit shape; a large interorbital distance; a more undulating supraorbital ridge; and large teeth"
1) Can you stop it with the excessive large images. It doesn’t give your post more credibility or validation.
2) What is outdated about the papers?
3) Who is “Afrocentric”?
4) Would it matter if someone is Afrocentric? The study is called Africana.
By “negroid”, you mean this?
quote: One of Amenhotep III’s greatest building achievements was the Temple of Amun, now in modern day Luxor.
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: So this represent negroids ?? :
I don’t know if you have a reading and comprehension disability, but I asked you if that is what you meant. You in return asked me your initial statement.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Here's another problem I have with you guys. You create ideas like "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" when people can be treated as Black and have Caucasoid features. "Negroid" and Caucasoid are not races. Black and White are races. And Black people can have features you describe as "Caucasoid."
No by negroid here I mean people like west and central africans or like dark skinned aframs.
something like this : "These include a broad and round nasal cavity; no dam or nasal sill; Quonset hut-shaped nasal bones; notable facial projection in the jaw and mouth area (prognathism); a rectangular-shaped palate; a square or rectangular eye orbit shape; a large interorbital distance; a more undulating supraorbital ridge; and large teeth"
Also stop lying the great majority of the mummies i posted were very old and predate the hyksos invasion.
I'm more interested in how closely they resembled people that looked Black, not whether or not they had specific features like prognathism. Because Black people can have Caucasoid features. To say they cannot is a lie.
As for your reconstructions:
Nebiri: 3,500-year-old Egyptian noble (1,500 BC). Does not predate
Meritamun is about 2000 years old which puts her origin somewhere in the BC/AD period. She doesn't predate mass immigration either.
“Gilded Lady,” who died and was mummified in Egypt between 30 B.C.E. and 395 C.E
to quote Lioness:
quote: This reconstruction shows another female mummy from the Redpath Museum. Radiocarbon dating indicate that she lived late in the period of Roman rule, when Christianity was on the rise in Egypt and mummification was soon to go out of fashion. Studies of her mummy revealed her hair to be gray and it's estimated that she died between the ages of 30 and 50. She had severe dental problems including a cavity between two teeth and multiple abscesses.
So yes, as I said these were generally later period samples, I was not "lying." The other two I didn't find where they were from so please feel free to drop links about them. And even with these reconstructions some of whom would look Black with changes to hair and flesh tone.
Now, to answer your other question about population density...well
Please review column C. As you can see, it took time to cultivate the Delta to become more hospitable for larger populations. The people of the Delta were not originally as advanced as the south and neither was their infrastructure. Not that it should matter which side had more people. If the founders came from the south, why is it at all important how many people of a different culture they subjugated? Whites don't suggest Rhodesia to be Black and they were the overwhelming majority. Please answer this, thanks.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Oh, nearly missed this:
quote: as the Abusir samples are discussed extensively. "The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal "ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times."Schuenemann et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods". Nature Communications, 2017
I also have the haplogroups of the 90 mummies of abusir and none of them show ssa haplogroups :
Please refer to The Nile Valley Database Zarahan and I discuss the Abusir samples if you scroll down.
General problems included:
-Sampling(all 90 are from a single site in the north). The north had contacts with the NE dating to the predynastic, but as I mentioned didn't create the culture we associate with Egypt.
-This site is post mass immigration--much like your reconstructions.
-Worse, they're northern and the impact of immigration that began at 2000 B.C and change the politics of Egypt centuries later--was greatest felt in the north. Even Upper Egypt's north of Aysut came under control of Asiatics.
-There are no older samples to be anticipated, these younger samples are all she wrote.
-Evidence of foreign influences like names Greek and Hebrew names are found at the site.
-Keita points out STR data from the southern portions of Egypt align more with Africans, and the types of Africans they have affinity with don't match slave routes.
But lets ignore for a moment this and assume the data is representative. Is race a genetic construct for that data to matter? Because what you're implying by bringing it into this conversation, is that it is. But then, how do you explain the fact Aboriginals celebrate Black history month like African Americans do-- because they were treated as Black people? Are you implying Aboriginals are closely related to Sub Saharan Africans? What data do you have that proves this?
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: So this represent negroids ?? :
I don’t know if you have a reading and comprehension disability, but I asked you if that is what you meant. You in return asked me your initial statement.
The picture you posted were not negroids but here I have the same kind of heads made during the same eras (amarnian art) and they looked like modern egyptians :
and yes of course the scribe was burried in saqqarah but he's probably not egyptian but a scandinavian but when people show extremely dark statues with negroid features you don't care anymore about their backgrounds ( very objective I must say )
People who think that AEs looked like this are extremely delusional :
I want everyone to observe something about this person. We want to discuss how they measure to REAL races, but they refuse and attempt to keep conversation as firmly rooted in anthropological fantasies on what races "should" mean but often do not mean in real life.
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: [QB] So this represent negroids ?? :
You're doing it again. First, this image is from what, Giza? May of the other scribes were found in Saqqara. Where is that? Second I asked if they are BLACK. Which means: If they were alive today, could/would their appearance leave get them treated as Blacks? There are Black people that have family that looks just like the scribe in the U.S. His appearance would certainly be more commonly found among Black than whites.
One issue I take is that when it comes to these conversations, people like this man, who lived as Black all their lives are suddenly not so when the conversation is about Egypt. Suddenly, they are "mixed" as if being "mixed" means anything when you practically made human beings as genetically removed as south Africans and Aboriginals one race. Their penotypes have in their entirety gotten them judged as Blacks, so they are Black people. Northern Egyptians looked like a combination of NE that didn't look Black at all to Prince, Beyonce, Alicia Keys and El Debarge-- the lighter Blacks. Ethiopians and Nubians were how Blacks in the south looked.
quote: and yes of course the scribe was burried in saqqarah but he's probably not egyptian but a scandinavian but when people show extremely dark statues with negroid features you don't care anymore about their backgrounds ( very objective I must say )
No one's denying they were Egyptians. His nationality was probably Egyptian. But was he from the same group who founded the country? Probably not. If you think it's like calling him a scandinavian, then I guess the only way to reconcile this is to suggest the American colonists looked Native American or West African. Because you know SOME people in the U.S looked/look like that and weren't/aren't recent arrivals. So to insist the founding fathers didn't look like say--a West African is to say people who looked West African were foreigners visiting the country. Man they sure treated their tourists badly huh? Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I want everyone to observe something about this person. We want to discuss how they measure to REAL races, but they refuse and attempt to keep conversation as firmly rooted in anthropological fantasies on what races "should" mean but often do not mean in real life.
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: [QB] So this represent negroids ?? :
You're doing it again. First, this image is from what, Giza? May of the other scribes were found in Saqqara. Where is that? Second I asked if they are BLACK. Which means: If they were alive today, could/would their appearance leave get them treated as Blacks? There are Black people that have family that looks just like the scribe in the U.S. His appearance would certainly be more commonly found among Black than whites.
One issue I take is that when it comes to these conversations, people like this man, who lived as Black all their lives are suddenly not so when the conversation is about Egypt. Suddenly, they are "mixed" as if being "mixed" means anything when you practically made human beings as genetically removed as south Africans and Aboriginals one race. Their penotypes have in their entirety gotten them judged as Blacks, so they are Black people. Northern Egyptians looked like a combination of NE that didn't look Black at all to Prince, Beyonce, Alicia Keys and El Debarge-- the lighter Blacks. Ethiopians and Nubians were how Blacks in the south looked.
Wtf this scribe would be seen as a middle easterner in our modern world do not bring the weird american census because with this comparison a pakistani can be black and a moroccan like me is considered "white"in the same group as scandinavians. Also do not compare them with modern light skinned aframs who are mixed (euro ancestry) and didn't exist in the past nor in Africa. Also your ancestors were from west and central africa you have no link with Egypt.
But that's not a problem if you want a more explicit look i can provide it :
edit : yes of course this scribe is not a descendent of the founders of egypt simply because he does not look enough black to you ...you have no evidence of this and I posted statues from the old empire who show again caucasoid features. Again do not make the mistake to compare the situation of the new world with egypt. native americans were massively killed either by europeans or diseases brought by them such thing never happened in egypt. Yeah sure hyksos were millions and replaced all the egyptians LOL
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Wtf this scribe would be seen as a middle easterner in our modern world do not bring the weird american census because with this comparison a pakistani can be black and a moroccan like me is considered "white"in the same group as scandinavians.
The scribe could be seen as Black, and like I said many Blacks have that phenotype within their community, especially in the states. I'm not talking about the census. The census doesn't reflect how people get treated. They're still calling Middle Easterners white but there's no way in hell they're treated as the same race unless they look VERY European. There are people that are labeled and treated as Black that look like him. And even if we omitted that portion of Black diversity out, this is more representative of the northern coastal phenotype, not the southern phenotype that's Nubian and Ethiopian. Review of their skulls seems to put Upper Egypt with Sudanese and Ethiopians, whether you like it or not.
quote:edit : yes of course this scribe is not a descendent of the founders of egypt simply because he does not look enough black to you ...
No, I said northern Egyptians didn't create Egyptian culture, they were assimilated. It has nothing to do with their look but the way they were absorbed became Egyptians. Secondly, YOU are the one saying Blacks can't look that way.
quote: native americans were massively killed either by europeans or diseases brought by them such thing never happened in egypt. Yeah sure hyksos were millions and replaced all the egyptians LOL
Near Easterners flooded Egypt due to climate change starting at 2000 B.C. Those that couldn't find a place like Egypt died. It was a matter of life and death. Asiatic migrants intermarried with a segment of the Egyptian population that ALREADY somewhat resembled them, and the phenotypes that produced eventually expanded into Upper Egypt. That is what I said.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
quote:Wtf this scribe would be seen as a middle easterner in our modern world do not bring the weird american census because with this comparison a pakistani can be black and a moroccan like me is considered "white"in the same group as scandinavians.
The scribe could be seen as Black, and like I said many Blacks have that phenotype within their community, especially in the states. I'm not talking about the census. The census doesn't reflect how people get treated. They're still calling Middle Easterners white but there's no way in hell they're treated as the same race unless they look VERY European. There are people that are labeled and treated as Black that look like him. And even if we omitted that portion of Black diversity out, this is more representative of the northern coastal phenotype, not the southern phenotype that's Nubian and Ethiopian. Review of their skulls seems to put Upper Egypt with Sudanese and Ethiopians, whether you like it or not.
With your logic modern egyptians are black because some mixed afram can look like them ...Smh Such afram phenotypes don't exist in Africa because aframs have some euro ancestors. and ethiopians/somalis are craniometrically caucasoids just so you know....even though AE never looked like them
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
quote: native americans were massively killed either by europeans or diseases brought by them such thing never happened in egypt. Yeah sure hyksos were millions and replaced all the egyptians LOL
Near Easterners flooded Egypt due to climate change starting at 2000 B.C. Those that couldn't find a place like Egypt died. It was a matter of life and death. Asiatic migrants intermarried with a segment of the Egyptian population that ALREADY somewhat resembled them, and the phenotypes that produced eventually expanded into Upper Egypt. That is what I said.
WTF??? where did you get this ? I want an evidence now because i've never read such nonsense THis is a lie ! it's not even logic smh yeah the levant was a mortal desert but not egypt...and that's why in 2000 BC we have plenty of archeological remains in the levant !
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Some modern Egyptians would look like a lighter skinned Black person, yes. Just as I said Ancient Lower Egypt was also a combination of people who looked lighter (Black) and (non-Black) Middle Eastern. Many of the lighter more northern Egyptians however don't and did not look Black-- a point I acknowledged.
quote:..Smh Such afram phenotypes don't exist in Africa because aframs have some euro ancestors. and ethiopians/somalis are craniometrically caucasoids just so you know....even though AE never looked like them
So? If a person can be treated as Black regardless of whether or not they're even AFRICAN at all (hello Aboriginal Australia), why does it matter that they had some Euro ancestors? What matters is how they are treated for the phenotype they have, not whether or not the specific look is found n Africa. If they are treated as Black, even if their phenotype has unique features to it, they are a Black person. Ethiopians and Somali may have Caucasoid features but are still treated as Black people. Caucasoid features do not prohibit a person from being treated as Black, so please take race fiction that has no real world meaning somewhere else.
And you say they didn't resemble Ethiopians when Upper Egyptians did look like Ethiopians:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: WTF??? where did you get this ? I want an evidence now because i've never read such nonsense THis is a lie ! it's not even logic smh yeah the levant was a mortal desert but not egypt...and that's why in 2000 BC we have plenty of archeological remains in the levant !
Edit 2: I think some clarity is in order here.. 2000 B.C is when it starts. People didn't move to Egypt at once. Some DO survive in the Near East without leaving, but for many their only shot at survival was to move somewhere else. They chose to make a life for themselves in Egypt. We go over evidence of it in the Nile Valley Database you obviously haven't read yet. Hell your own source on the 90 Egyptian remains you brought up discusses intense immigration from the Near East.
quote:Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Some modern Egyptians would look like a lighter skinned Black person, yes. Just as I said Ancient Lower Egypt was also a combination of people who looked lighter (Black) and (non-Black) Middle Eastern. Many of the lighter more northern Egyptians however don't and did not look Black-- a point I acknowledged.
quote:..Smh Such afram phenotypes don't exist in Africa because aframs have some euro ancestors. and ethiopians/somalis are craniometrically caucasoids just so you know....even though AE never looked like them
So? If a person can be treated as Black regardless of whether or not they're even AFRICAN at all (hello Aboriginal Australia), why does it matter that they had some Euro ancestors? What matters is how they are treated for the phenotype they have, not whether or not the specific look is found n Africa. If they are treated as Black, even if their phenotype has unique features to it, they are a Black person. Ethiopians and Somali may have Caucasoid features but are still treated as Black people. Caucasoid features do not prohibit a person from being treated as Black, so please take race fiction that has no real world meaning somewhere else.
And you say they didn't resemble Ethiopians when Upper Egyptians did look like Ethiopians:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: WTF??? where did you get this ? I want an evidence now because i've never read such nonsense THis is a lie ! it's not even logic smh yeah the levant was a mortal desert but not egypt...and that's why in 2000 BC we have plenty of archeological remains in the levant !
2000 B.C is when it starts. People didn't move to Egypt at once. Some DO survive in the Near East without leaving, but for many their only shot at survival was to move somewhere else. They chose to make a life for themselves in Egypt. We go over evidence of it in the Nile Valley Database you obviously haven't read yet. Hell your own source on the 90 Egyptian remains you brought up discusses intense immigration from the Near East.
quote:Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant
This study is about 9500 bc remains and are in the sahara near the nubian borders sure they represent how all the egyptians looked like between 3000 BCE and 300 BC. From where do you think the neolithic revolution came from ? Also who told you that this levantine influence wasn't already there in 3000BCE ??
Indeed there were interactions with the levant but absolutely not a massive migrations of levantines people into egypt you're saying this so it can fit your agenda. Sad. It's like saying NAs are white because of arabs....yeah sure.
Also i know plenty of east africans who will disagree with you about their identity. What is sure is that you aframs have nothing to do with east africans nor egypt. You should read more about your west african ancestors before.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: This study is about 9500 bc remains and are in the sahara near the nubian borders sure they represent how all the egyptians looked like between 3000 BCE and 300 BC. From where do you think the neolithic revolution came from ? Also who told you that this levantine influence wasn't already there in 3000BCE ??
Not sure what you're talking about. If you're talking about the skeletal study,that's not true. HRK for example is dated 3500-3200 BC. How are you getting 9500 B.C? The Upper and Lower Egyptians seem to be also be pooled from dynastic and predynastic Egyptians.
quote:Indeed there were interactions with the levant but absolutely not a massive migrations of levantines people into egypt you're saying this so it can fit your agenda. Sad. It's like saying NAs are white because of arabs....yeah sure.
You're kidding. Your own source described "large-scale immigration".
quote:Also i know plenty of east africans who will disagree with you about their identity.
Many humans have their own unique social constructs similar to the western idea of race. But race as it has been socially introduced by the West has consistently characterized and treated them as Black no matter how much some of them may want to be someone else.
quote: What is sure is that you aframs have nothing to do with east africans nor egypt. You should read more about your west african ancestors before.
LOL admitting Egypt was founded as a Black culture and civilization doesn't mean I don't know anything about West Africa. It's just stating a fact. You don't appear to even know what my username means because you are lacking in any understanding of West African cultures ancestral to African Americans. If you did you probably wouldn't have tried that. Poor lil' tink tink.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: So this represent negroids ?? :
I don’t know if you have a reading and comprehension disability, but I asked you if that is what you meant. You in return asked me your initial statement.
The picture you posted were not negroids but here I have the same kind of heads made during the same eras (amarnian art) and they looked like modern egyptians :
and yes of course the scribe was burried in saqqarah but he's probably not egyptian but a scandinavian but when people show extremely dark statues with negroid features you don't care anymore about their backgrounds ( very objective I must say )
People who think that AEs looked like this are extremely delusional :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: This study is about 9500 bc remains and are in the sahara near the nubian borders sure they represent how all the egyptians looked like between 3000 BCE and 300 BC. From where do you think the neolithic revolution came from ? Also who told you that this levantine influence wasn't already there in 3000BCE ??
Not sure what you're talking about. If you're talking about the skeletal study,that's not true. HRK for example is dated 3500-3200 BC. How are you getting 9500 B.C? The Upper and Lower Egyptians seem to be also be pooled from dynastic and predynastic Egyptians.
quote:Indeed there were interactions with the levant but absolutely not a massive migrations of levantines people into egypt you're saying this so it can fit your agenda. Sad. It's like saying NAs are white because of arabs....yeah sure.
You're kidding. Your own source described "large-scale immigration".
quote:Also i know plenty of east africans who will disagree with you about their identity.
Many humans have their own unique social constructs similar to the western idea of race. But race as it has been socially introduced by the West has consistently characterized and treated them as Black no matter how much some of them may want to be someone else.
quote: What is sure is that you aframs have nothing to do with east africans nor egypt. You should read more about your west african ancestors before.
LOL admitting Egypt was founded as a Black culture and civilization doesn't mean I don't know anything about West Africa. It's just stating a fact. You don't appear to even know what my username means because you are lacking in any understanding of West African cultures ancestral to African Americans. If you did you probably wouldn't have tried that. Poor lil' tink tink.
Are you even serious ? this "large-scale migration" happened way before History began it has nothing to do with hyksos who were just a bunch of levantine soldiers who take the control of egypt like later the europeans will take the control of africa. Egypt was absolutely not founded by black people ( yes they brought everything and then were immediately replaced and those whites just stole their culture yeah sure keep dreaming) except if you consider modern copts to be black...but I can understand after all the afram community went through it's logical that they are claiming such a great civilization.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: So this represent negroids ?? :
I don’t know if you have a reading and comprehension disability, but I asked you if that is what you meant. You in return asked me your initial statement.
The picture you posted were not negroids but here I have the same kind of heads made during the same eras (amarnian art) and they looked like modern egyptians :
and yes of course the scribe was burried in saqqarah but he's probably not egyptian but a scandinavian but when people show extremely dark statues with negroid features you don't care anymore about their backgrounds ( very objective I must say )
People who think that AEs looked like this are extremely delusional :
I will act the same as you : Give me the context and source of those pics I also want to know the exact background of these people. Also 2D art is not really reliable.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Now compare this with how nubians were portrayed
Looks can be deceiving.
quote:"Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts. Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization.
~Michał Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabaciński, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt
quote: "The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
~Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Also 2D art is not really reliable.
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Now compare this with how nubians were portrayed
Looks can be deceiving.
quote:"Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts. Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization.
~Michał Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabaciński, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt
quote: "The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
~Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
Your first link show interactions between nilotics and saharans population not geneflow or a big cultural influence on later egyptians...During all her history Egypt interacted with Nilotics nothing impressive here.
Now your second link is about Gebel ramlah during the mid-fifth millenium B.C I'll invite you to seek on a map where is gebel ramlah so you can better understand and also take a look at the period...
Ok so now about affinities between upper egyptians and lower nubians just take a look please :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Are you even serious ? this "large-scale migration" happened way before History began it has nothing to do with hyksos who were just a bunch of levantine soldiers who take the control of egypt like later the europeans will take the control of africa.
Delta this delta that. The question of phenotypic closeness between lower Egypt and the NE doesn't really matter to me right now. The Delta wasn't where the cultural complex that created Egypt began even if there was a prior predynastic connection that made them similar in appearance.
Second: You are incorrect in your assumption that they were just small scale soldiers who slaughtered their way to rule while segregating themselves like it was an apartheid state. Levanites gradually entered the aristocracy through intermarriages and were esteemed citizens of Egypt centuries before the takeover happened. Your source says:
quote:Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant
Your source. I doubt there was much "Black agenda" there. Oh wellll.
quote: Egypt was absolutely not founded by black people ( yes they brought everything and then were immediately replaced and those whites just stole their culture yeah sure keep dreaming) except if you consider modern copts to be black...
Coptic comes from a Delta form of Egyptian writing. Copts themselves didn't exist as distinct identity until well after the Delta was overrun by Asiatics. And even before the Delta was overrun by Asiatics, the indigenous people of the Delta as I previously mentioned weren't the founders of Egypt. the data I posted seems to show some affinity to the Magrheb and NE, but as I said they were brought into the culture. It's not a surprise they look the way they do. It contradicts nothing I've stated thus far. Understanding local history and context is very important.
quote: but I can understand after all the afram community went through it's logical that they are claiming such a great civilization. [/qb]
We are claiming it as Black....because it is, not because of what we went through. Phenotypically the founding culture closely resembled Nubians, Ethiopians--other Black people as far as the concept of Black/race has been concerned when practiced by western globalists.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Are you even serious ? this "large-scale migration" happened way before History began it has nothing to do with hyksos who were just a bunch of levantine soldiers who take the control of egypt like later the europeans will take the control of africa.
First, I don't really care. The Delta wasn't where the cultural complex that created Egypt began even if there was a prior predynastic connection between some of the tribes of the Delta.
Second: You are incorrect in your assumption that they were just small scale soldiers who slaughtered their way to rule while segregating themselves like it was an apartheid state. Levanites gradually entered the aristocracy through intermarriages and were esteemed citizens of Egypt centuries before the takeover happened. Your source says:
quote:Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant
Your source. I doubt there was much "Black agenda" there. Oh wellll.
quote:[qb] Egypt was absolutely not founded by black people ( yes they brought everything and then were immediately replaced and those whites just stole their culture yeah sure keep dreaming) except if you consider modern copts to be black...
Coptic comes from a Delta form of Egyptian writing. Copts themselves didn't exist as distinct identity until well after the Delta was overrun by Asiatics. And even before the Delta was overrun by Asiatics, the indigenous people of the Delta as I previously mentioned weren't the founders of Egypt. They were brought into the culture. It's not a surprise they look the way they do. It contradicts nothing I've stated thus far. Understanding local history and context is very important.
quote: but I can understand after all the afram community went through it's logical that they are claiming such a great civilization.
We are claiming it as Black....because it is, not because of what we went through. Phenotypically the founding culture closely resembled Nubians, Ethiopians--other Black people as far as the concept of Black/race has been concerned when practiced by western globalists.
Which source are you talking about ? Because i didn't find your quote who seems to be incorrect. Also I posted several statues from the old kingdom none of them look black and if egyptians were black and non-levantines before hyksos came how did they learn agriculture ??? Yeah those intermarriages are well known but the elite represented not even 1% of the population and they were also nubian princesses who were married to some pharaohs...not just levantines. So according to your childish way of thinking egyptians were all black like bantus but just next to them in the levant people were all white skinned yeah sure seems natural and logical.
Also what you're saying doesn't make sense because modern egyptians from the delta scored high amount of a North african component and not west asian or middle eastern ( I can post some examples if needed)
There is not one evidence that ancient egyptians were black like nilotes or bantus/afram. Period.
"Black people resided not in the Nile valley but in a far land, by the fountain of the sun."
Xenpohanes (Hesoid, works and says, 527-8)
Also I talked about copts because they didn't mix with the muslim invaders and were very endogamous ( so they are even more preserved than muslim egyptians but just a bit)
"The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal "ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times."Schuenemann et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods". Nature Communications, 2017
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote: We are claiming it as Black....because it is, not because of what we went through. Phenotypically the founding culture closely resembled Nubians, Ethiopians--other Black people as far as the concept of Black/race has been concerned when practiced by western globalists.
Which source are you talking about ? Because i didn't find your quote who seems to be incorrect.
The one that talks about large scale immigration? YOUR source. That's where I got the quote! I'm not going to continue this play-stupid routine. Anyone reading this thread can click the link and search the part I quoted. You're either extremely lazy or a very boring troll.
quote: Also I posted several statues from the old kingdom none of them look black and if egyptians were black and non-levantines before hyksos came how did they learn agriculture ???
Still haven't read the database, huh?
quote: Yeah those intermarriages are well known but the elite represented not even 1% of the population and they were also nubian princesses who were married to some pharaohs...not just levantines.
Nubians were always part of the same culture and were very phenotypically similar to upper Egyptians, diverging from them in the predynastic. Near Easterners and Lower Egyptians weren't. Marriage between a Nubian and Upper Egyptian is like two western Europeans marrying. They were people of different nationality with similar phenotype and culture.
quote: So according to your childish way of thinking egyptians were all black like bantus but just next to them in the levant people were all white skinned yeah sure seems natural and logical.
I didn't say they were "Black like Bantus." I said they were Black like Nubians and Ethiopians while the northern peoples of Egypt looked closer to people in the Levant.
quote:Also what you're saying doesn't make sense because modern egyptians from the delta scored high amount of a North african component and not west asian or middle eastern ( I can post some examples if needed)
We're arguing race not genetics here. It's possible for people to be genetically related, while having phenotypic differences. A Negrito can as the name implies, get associated with Blacks and be genetically closer to nearby (non-black) Asians. Northern Africa has several phenotypes indigenous to the area, even if they are all genetically related when picking apart their genes. Delta populations descended from Lower Egyptians and also had a considerable flow of Near Eastern ancestry.
My point was that Copts descended from people whose phenotypes described in racial terms were at best along the fringes of anything that looked Black in the Old Kingdom and predynastic. They then intermarried with Near Easterners coming into the delta who mostly wouldn't have looked Black at all. It doesn't mean they aren't related to more Ethiopian looking Blacks in northern Africa. It's just that such a relationship is seen more easily through genetics, not phenotype. People who are of the same race don't have to be closely related and it is possible to be more closely related to someone of a different race than a person is to many of the people they are racially ascribed. Kind of why the whole idea of race realism as a biological reality rooted in genetics is ....well, stupid.
quote:There is not one evidence that ancient egyptians were black like nilotes or bantus/afram. Period.
I said ancient Egyptians were Black like Nubians and Ethiopians, I never said anything about all black people looking the same, let alone that the Egyptians looked like exactly like a West African.
quote: Also I talked about copts because they didn't mix with the muslim invaders and were very endogamous ( so they are even more preserved than muslim egyptians but just a bit)
Didn't say they mixed with Muslim invaders. I said they descended from lower Egyptians whose phenotypes more closely resembled the Near East, and THEN those Lower Egyptians mixed with Near Easterners flowing into the delta by the New Kingdom. The Copts came from the delta, they would've mixed with non blacks from the Near East before any other group given the circumstance. But that mixing would've been pre-Islamic.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote: We are claiming it as Black....because it is, not because of what we went through. Phenotypically the founding culture closely resembled Nubians, Ethiopians--other Black people as far as the concept of Black/race has been concerned when practiced by western globalists.
Which source are you talking about ? Because i didn't find your quote who seems to be incorrect.
The one that talks about large scale immigration? YOUR source. That's where I got the quote! I'm not going to continue this play-stupid routine. Anyone reading this thread can click the link and search the part I quoted. You're either extremely lazy or a very boring troll.
quote: Also I posted several statues from the old kingdom none of them look black and if egyptians were black and non-levantines before hyksos came how did they learn agriculture ???
Still haven't read the database, huh?
quote: Yeah those intermarriages are well known but the elite represented not even 1% of the population and they were also nubian princesses who were married to some pharaohs...not just levantines.
Nubians were always part of the same culture and were very phenotypically similar to upper Egyptians, diverging from them in the predynastic. Near Easterners and Lower Egyptians weren't. Marriage between a Nubian and Upper Egyptian is like two western Europeans marrying. They were people of different nationality with similar phenotype and culture.
quote: So according to your childish way of thinking egyptians were all black like bantus but just next to them in the levant people were all white skinned yeah sure seems natural and logical.
I didn't say they were "Black like Bantus." I said they were Black like Nubians and Ethiopians while the northern peoples of Egypt looked closer to people in the Levant.
quote:Also what you're saying doesn't make sense because modern egyptians from the delta scored high amount of a North african component and not west asian or middle eastern ( I can post some examples if needed)
We're arguing race not genetics here. It's possible for people to be genetically related, while having phenotypic differences. A Negrito can as the name implies, get associated with Blacks and be genetically closer to nearby (non-black) Asians. Northern Africa has several phenotypes indigenous to the area, even if they are all genetically related when picking apart their genes. Delta populations descended from Lower Egyptians and also had a considerable flow of Near Eastern ancestry.
My point was that Copts descended from people whose phenotypes described in racial terms were at best along the fringes of anything that looked Black in the Old Kingdom and predynastic. They then intermarried with Near Easterners coming into the delta who mostly wouldn't have looked Black at all. It doesn't mean they aren't related to more Ethiopian looking Blacks in northern Africa. It's just that such a relationship is seen more easily through genetics, not phenotype. People who are of the same race don't have to be closely related and it is possible to be more closely related to someone of a different race than a person is to many of the people they are racially ascribed. Kind of why the whole idea of race realism as a biological reality rooted in genetics is ....well, stupid.
quote:There is not one evidence that ancient egyptians were black like nilotes or bantus/afram. Period.
I said ancient Egyptians were Black like Nubians and Ethiopians, I never said anything about all black people looking the same, let alone that the Egyptians looked like exactly like a West African.
quote: Also I talked about copts because they didn't mix with the muslim invaders and were very endogamous ( so they are even more preserved than muslim egyptians but just a bit)
Didn't say they mixed with Muslim invaders. I said they descended from lower Egyptians whose phenotypes more closely resembled the Near East, and THEN those Lower Egyptians mixed with Near Easterners flowing into the delta by the New Kingdom. The Copts came from the delta, they would've mixed with non blacks from the Near East before any other group given the circumstance. But that mixing would've been pre-Islamic.
From the same source : "Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree " and now take a look at this preserved egyptians : https://imgur.com/Ni5Gaql
They didn't cluster with nubians or ethiopians at all.
The reality is that the great majority of egyptians were like the modern ones since at least the late neolithic era with probably a minority among them in upper egypt looking like their nubian neighbours that's it stop dreaming about a black north africa you will not steal our history. Also if your argument was true we would have found some egyptian cultural traits in ethiopia or nubia but the egyptian civilization and her specific cultural traits appeared way before these two and influenced them heavily later.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: From the same source : "Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree " and now take a look at this preserved egyptians : https://imgur.com/Ni5Gaql
The town as the author stated wasn't populated until the Late period:
quote: Q5. Lines 75-77. “In particular, the site holds much promise for studying changes in its population structure from the late Dynastic Period to the present day.” Why is this the case? Is it due to the better DNA preservation in the later mummies?? Please explain!
Answer:Unfortunately, mummies from the Old till early New Kingdom are not present at the site or and not included in our data set, which focusses on the three consecutive periods. The site is mainly occupied during the Late Period till Roman times according to written sources, and thus would allow the study of an extended temporal transect. We furthermore find in more than 50% of all remains authentic ancient DNA preserved, suggesting this to be an ideal site for further studies.
Yes the period is consecutive. No the samples are not older, they were by AE standards quite young. As the authors admit: they are mostly Late through Roman period. Any mass immigration occurring through the second millennium BC( that the study you cited said happened) would've began centuries before. Any impact this would've had to northern Egypt especially would've needed mummies many centuries older than the remains available. There were also no mummies from the south--go figure. How do you determine that Nubians were not genetically close to southern Egyptians, when you have no samples from southern Egypt from in the study, from any time period? What STRs we do have suggest several southern Egyptians to have affinities that could be found further south.
You are too thirsty for this study to confirm more than it honestly can deliver when reading the fine print. I will (again) humor you though. Let's assume the results they have for later period Egyptians are accurate for all Egyptians across time and no matter where they lived. Okay then So. What? Races are not genetic constructs. So why do you seem hellbent on discussing genetics? Why are Aboriginal Australians Black if Blacks can only be Sub Saharan Africans? Because globalists have labeled their phenotype Black despite how genetically different they are.
Can people more closely related to one another (genetically) be phenotypically of different races? Yes. Which groups looked closest groups to the Upper Egyptian founders of the civilization? Nubians and Ethiopians. Even if we explore the idea that they were genetically closest to people that weren't/aren't Black (which has yet to be determined) phenotypically, we already the best approximations for how they looked were blacks.
quote:The reality is that the great majority of egyptians were like the modern ones since at least the late neolithic era with probably a minority among them in upper egypt looking like their nubian neighbours that's it stop dreaming about a black north africa you will not steal our history.
Again you're trying to force everyone into that racist genetic "race realist" nonsense. Race is not a genetic construct. It doesn't matter what their genetics were. Who did they resemble phenotypically? Nubians and Ethiopians. That's what the founders of Egypt look like. They had a Black phenotype. That means that Egypt has a Black history. It could--if genetics demonstrate a similar affinity in the south ALSO be a history connecting northern Africans and the Near East. But you are trying to invoke a false dichotomy: That in attempting to successfully prove a genetic relationship between AE and the Near East and/or northern Africa, you prove that that they looked a certain way. Proving one does not prove the other. Phenotypically the south looked Black and thus Egypt's pre-islamic culture was Black. Interestingly enough: their culture in it's formative stages was developing similarly throughout sub saharan Africa-- most especially with Nubian groups like Ta-Seti that extended into Sudan. Meanwhile northern Egyptians were technologically less advanced, though many of the cultures of the Maadi-Buto complex did have some Levanite cultural affinities.
quote: Also if your argument was true we would have found some egyptian cultural traits in ethiopia or nubia but the egyptian civilization and her specific cultural traits appeared way before these two and influenced them heavily later. [/QB]
There's not reading and then there's....wow. Haven't seen the pharonic imagery and cultures of (what was it A-Group) Nubians? The Qustul incense Burner descriptions of these people's kingdom as "Ta-Seti" which ironically happened to be the first nome of Egypt? Ta Seti begins to develop in the predynastic while backwater ass Lower Egypt was of no comparable splendor and didn't have much in the way of a king or pharonic culture of their own until they were taken over by the royals of Abydos.
EDIT: I also need to add joking aside, who they resembled culturally or genetically the most, is NOT the same as demonstrating who they phenotypically resembled the most. Whether the Nubians were closest culturally or genetically, they were a good approximation for how a Upper Egyptian looked. And Nubians were Black. You guys can't just go calling them "Black pharoahs" for years and then think people aren't going to assume Upper Egyptians that closely resembled them to ALSO be Black.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: From the same source : "Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree " and now take a look at this preserved egyptians : https://imgur.com/Ni5Gaql
The town as the author stated wasn't populated until the Late period:
quote: Q5. Lines 75-77. “In particular, the site holds much promise for studying changes in its population structure from the late Dynastic Period to the present day.” Why is this the case? Is it due to the better DNA preservation in the later mummies?? Please explain!
Answer:Unfortunately, mummies from the Old till early New Kingdom are not present at the site or and not included in our data set, which focusses on the three consecutive periods. The site is mainly occupied during the Late Period till Roman times according to written sources, and thus would allow the study of an extended temporal transect. We furthermore find in more than 50% of all remains authentic ancient DNA preserved, suggesting this to be an ideal site for further studies.
Yes the period is consecutive. No the samples are not older, they were by AE standards quite young. As the authors admit: they are mostly Late through Roman period. Any mass immigration occurring through the second millennium BC( that the study you cited said happened) would've began centuries before. Any impact this would've had to northern Egypt especially would've needed mummies many centuries older than the remains available. There were also no mummies from the south--go figure. How do you determine that Nubians were not genetically close to southern Egyptians, when you have no samples from southern Egypt from in the study, from any time period? What STRs we do have suggest several southern Egyptians to have affinities that could be found further south.
You are too thirsty for this study to confirm more than it honestly can deliver when reading the fine print. I will (again) humor you though. Let's assume the results they have for later period Egyptians are accurate for all Egyptians across time and no matter where they lived. Okay then So. What? Races are not genetic constructs. So why do you seem hellbent on discussing genetics? Why are Aboriginal Australians Black if Blacks can only be Sub Saharan Africans? Because globalists have labeled their phenotype Black despite how genetically different they are.
Can people more closely related to one another (genetically) be phenotypically of different races? Yes. Which groups looked closest groups to the Upper Egyptian founders of the civilization? Nubians and Ethiopians. Even if we explore the idea that they were genetically closest to people that aren't Black (which has yet to be determined) phenotypically we already the best approximations for how they looked were blacks.
quote:The reality is that the great majority of egyptians were like the modern ones since at least the late neolithic era with probably a minority among them in upper egypt looking like their nubian neighbours that's it stop dreaming about a black north africa you will not steal our history.
Again you're trying to force everyone into that racist genetic "race realist" nonsense. Race is not a genetic construct. It doesn't matter what their genetics were. Who did they resemble phenotypically? Nubians and Ethiopians. That's what the founders of Egypt look like that is a Black phenotype which means that Egypt has a Black history. It could--if genetics demonstrate a similar affinity in the south ALSO be a history connecting northern Africans and the Near East. But you are trying to invoke a false dichotomy: That in attempting to successfully prove a genetic relationship between AE and the Near East and/or northern Africa, you prove that that they looked a certain way. Proving one does not prove the other. Phenotypically the south looked Black and thus Egypt's pre-islamic culture was Black. Their culture was shared throughout sub saharan Africa-- most especially with Nubian groups like Ta-Seti that extended into Sudan. Meanwhile northern Egyptians were technologically less advanced, though many of the cultures of the Maadi-Buto complex did have some Levanite affinities.
quote: Also if your argument was true we would have found some egyptian cultural traits in ethiopia or nubia but the egyptian civilization and her specific cultural traits appeared way before these two and influenced them heavily later.
There's not reading and then there's....wow. Haven't seen the pharonic imagery and cultures of (what was it A-Group) Nubians? The Qustul incense Burner descriptions of these people's kingdom as "Ta-Seti" which ironically happened to be the first nome of Egypt? Ta Seti begins to develop in the predynastic while backwater ass Lower Egypt was of no comparable splendor and didn't have much in the way of a king or pharonic culture of their own until they were taken over by the royals of Abydos. [/QB]
Again you have zero evidence that they looked like nubians or ethiopian you're just making assumptions so you can claim egypt as a black civilization and therefore a civilization closer to afram than to the MENA people...Now that you know that egyptians were not blacks (because everything show it) you're trying to imply that the great majority of them mixed with levantines and that before this event they were like nubians and ethiopians and created everything which is completely false ( provide evidence like me stop talking).
ANd also stop bringing your american nonsense such thing about race don't exist here in the old world it's not a social construct if you're genetically black then you're black. Period. Also no one in the scientific field consider aboriginal australians to be "black" they are australoids and apparented to other south east asian populations.
The problem here is that you consider this to be black (because of your american background) : https://imgur.com/M2Dzfmf
which is not black here in the old world but a north african with a good amount of ssa ancestry ( and don't tell me he doesn't look like some AE)
Also why do you not speak about the trans saharan slave trade who probably brought more blacks in NA than arabs+levantines and europeans combined ( almost 10 millions of black slaves were brought in NA between the 10th and 19th century ! and you that it doesn't affect it ?? ) let's see what the datas show us : "A proportion of 1/4 to 1/2 of North African female pool is made of typical sub-Saharan lineages, in higher frequencies as geographic proximity to sub-Saharan Africa increases. The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region, but the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade could have facilitate enormously this migration of lineages." "The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations, namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Sub-Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago."
"The attempt to force the Egyptians into either a “black” or a “white” category has no biological justification. Our data show not only that Egypt clearly had biological ties to the north and to the south, but that it was intermediate between populations to the east and the west, and that Egypt was basically Egyptian from the Neolithic right on up to historic times. In this, our analysis simply reinforces the findings of other recent studies" source : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajpa.1330360603
Here’s the most important differences between ancient Egyptian mtDNA and modern Egyptian+Near Eastern mtDNA: moderns have a lot more J1b, H, U3, and African L(xM, N). (http://mtdnaatlas.blogspot.com/2017/06/first-look-at-ancient-egyptian-mtdna.html)
Btw stop hiding what's your name on ABf so I know if I should still waste my time with you (Roseai maybe?)
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Again you have zero evidence that they looked like nubians or ethiopian you're just making assumptions so you can claim egypt as a black civilization and therefore a civilization closer to afram than to the MENA people...
I just posted evidence that Upper Egyptians resembled Nubians and Ethiopians more than they did Lower Egyptians and the Maghreb. And I'm not sure what you mean by saying AE civilization is closer to African Americans than MENA. It is possible for a given group of people to resemble one group more than another in one way, only for it to be a different story once the subject of comparison is something else. African Americans aren't suggesting their culture nor most modern cultures are like Ancient Egypt. Phenotypically, AE's founders were Black but most African Americans don't think they're the closest blacks to Ancient Egyptians. Your problem is you're approaching this entire conversation with a false dichotomy. Can Upper Egypt be closer to Blacks phenotypically? Yes. Could it be possible they were closest to a group of people that aren't Black genotypically? Yes (though we don't know that and their STR data so far wouldn't suggest it). Is it also possible cultural connections weren't neatly spread along biological lines? That as many of you MENA would tell it, the "genetically dissimilar" Nubian and southern Egyptian were closest culturally? Yes. How do you engineer the idea Sudanese and southern Egyptians were not related biologically like the southern Egyptians were to "MENA", and then get surprised that when people want to acknowledge the common cultural relationship of Sudan and southern Egypt it's done via notions of race?
You can celebrate having a common ancestry with the ancient Egyptians if in fact the founders are revealed to genetically resemble you. But that'd be more or less a manner of complaining over apples and oranges because Blacks (unless Nubian) aren't saying they identify with Egypt over kinship in the first place. Only a very small minority of Blacks are saying that, and of course the fringes of the community is where you will focus your emotions.
For most rational people, what seems so confusing is your interest in claiming exclusive social ownership of the entire culture and formation of the state in broader terms. People aren't in tears when you identify with it, but when many MENA get mad, for saying it was so much as Black that's when it gets annoying. "MENA" wasn't even generally where the culture was developing. Most of the culture's development was taking place at the southern end of Egypt into Sudan. Whether the people were exceptionally related or not, that's what happened. Much of the "MENA" region was for the most part absorbed into the phenomenon after the culture was starting to take off. So how does "MENA" then strong arm and get into it's feelings? IDK. Crying whenever Sudanese and Nubians say it's theirs and when other parts of the world say it's Black because the phenotypes of both peoples were Black regardless of biological relationship.
I'm sorry if some people don't want to hear this. But the truth is Nubia was culturally much closer than Maadi-Buto cultures prior to southern colonialism. Nubians also phenotypically resembled the originators of dynastic Egypt. It's possible other MENA in the future could be found to be more closely related to ancient southern Egyptians when reviewing autosomal data. But even if that happened, there's a legitimate basis for Blacks to connect with the idea it was a Black culture: MENA were generally more culturally and phenotypically distinct in ancient/predynastic times from the southern kingdoms of predynastic Egypt and Sudan. And the cultural dissimilarity within northern Egypt was the case up until it was absorbed and assimilated by southern Egyptian rulers--something that is not true for Nubia.
Yes the most famous example of the Nile Valley culture is found in Egypt, but pharonic culture was something shared between the southern end of Egypt and Sudan (Sub Saharan Africa). Not northern Egypt, not the Middle East. The fact that MENA is constantly acting in a state of denial about a Nubian connection only bolsters Ancient Egypt's position as a Black civilization. So the story you guys are telling is these genetically dissimilar people who only shared a Black phenotype made a common culture together--but Blacks can't celebrate it as a Black culture? Why don't you go to Melanesian communities to spread genetic realism to them? Why is it fine when people we know to be genetically dissimilar celebrate being Black all over the world until it's Egypt? You want to have your cake and eat it too and it's not going to happen.
quote:Now that you know that egyptians were not blacks (because everything show it) you're trying to imply that the great majority of them mixed with levantines and that before this event they were like nubians and ethiopians and created everything which is completely false ( provide evidence like me stop talking).
I didn't say they "created everything." I said they founded the civilization. Those that made the civilization were Black. And whether the non blacks living outside southern upper Egypt were closely related to them or not, mixing with northern Egyptian types AND incoming Levanites changed how the country looked from it's founders.
Non-Black Egyptians contributed to Egyptian civilization, but the culture itself was produced by Black people. The southern Egyptians that would rise north to "unify" Egypt phenotypically (if not genotypically) resembled Nubians and Ethiopians. The phenotypes of segment of the Egyptian population most directly ancestral to the country's founders is what began changing.
quote:ANd also stop bringing your american nonsense such thing about race don't exist here in the old world it's not a social construct if you're genetically black then you're black. Period.
What is "genetic Blackness" if a Torres Strait islander and Igbo are both Black? Do you have any concept of how large the genetic distances you're talking about are? OR that both groups are more closely related to NON Blacks than they are each other? But of course the hypocrisy of it all is that when they create Black history month for themselves and push Australia for recognition your asses are nowhere to defend whatever the hell "genetic blackness" means. It's only when the world sees the question of Egypt do people get in their feels. Take a seat.
quote:Also no one in the scientific field consider aboriginal australians to be "black" they are australoids and apparented to other south east asian populations.
No one cares what people using -oid terms think Aboriginals are. The mainstream scientific community admits race is not a REAL genetic construct but a social one. SOCIALLY they have been denigrated as Black people. This is the problem with you goal post shifting race realists. You constantly try to ignore how people were treated against color labels, and revise history using fictional -oid races that don't match up to any of that. They were treated and referred to as a BLACK people like many other subjugated Melanesians. Many racist white Egyptologists couldn't also wait to discuss how savage and sub human the Upper Egyptians were. If they'd been alive they'd have been suffering attempts at colonialism like all the other Blacks. You can't just erase that history and try to make it something else. They have a Black history. It's not the same as a West African's but no one was arguing that it was.
quote:The problem here is that you consider this to be black (because of your american background) : https://imgur.com/M2Dzfmf
which is not black here in the old world but a north african with a good amount of ssa ancestry ( and don't tell me he doesn't look like some AE)
Yes, many AE would've looked like him, and when discussing race as a western globalist cultural construct --that man would be treated as Black. He'd have harder time than a man that looks like Colin Kapernick
The "old world" unless you're discussing Western Europe didn't create the concept of race that has globalist powers behind it. Their ideas are local opinions that lack power--much like Black Dominicans crying about how they're anything but Black. EVERY group of people has had some tribal idea that separated people. I am not about to go blue in the face discussing humanity by the thousands of local us-them ideologies, but the one that has been backed by globalist power and trillions of dollars. WE are talking about how the idea of Blackness--as a social construct engineered by western globalists operates. To sit here and talk to me about the old world while then trying to prove your point by the race fiction of Europeans is disingenuous.
quote:Also why do you not speak about the trans saharan slave trade who probably brought more blacks in NA than arabs+levantines and europeans combined ( almost 10 millions of black slaves were brought in NA between the 10th and 19th century ! and you that it doesn't affect it ?? )
Why would I need to discuss the slave trade when the Upper Egyptians born before it looked more like Nubians and Ethiopians?
quote:let's see what the datas show us : "A proportion of 1/4 to 1/2 of North African female pool is made of typical sub-Saharan lineages, in higher frequencies as geographic proximity to sub-Saharan Africa increases. The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region, but the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade could have facilitate enormously this migration of lineages."
I really could, but I'm getting bored of discussing genetics in a thread I specifically wanted to discuss race. Why are you talking about geographical barriers and gene flow? Even if it weren't possible to traverse the Sahara from tropical Africa through the Nile Valley (you can), what does that have to do with phenotyipic affinity? OR that Ancient Upper Egyptians closely resembled Blacks?
quote:"The attempt to force the Egyptians into either a “black” or a “white” category has no biological justification. Our data show not only that Egypt clearly had biological ties to the north and to the south, but that it was intermediate between populations to the east and the west, and that Egypt was basically Egyptian from the Neolithic right on up to historic times. In this, our analysis simply reinforces the findings of other recent studies" source : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajpa.1330360603
As a whole that's accurate. But when you ask who Upper Egyptians further south resembled, not the whole of Egypt, they typically resemble Ethiopians and Nubians. How come Rhodesia was white despite all the Blacks living there, but Egypt isn't associated with the people who founded it? It has to be associated with the sum of everyone that live there.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: Morphological and genetic research seems to provide further support for the topic. According to Grigson (1991, 2000) Egyptian cattle of the 4th millennium BC were morphologically distinct from Eurasian cattle (Bos taurus) and Zebu (Bos indicus), meaning that African cattle may have been domesticated from the local wild […]
Genetic studies indicate that the wild cattle in Eurasia and in Africa diverged 22,000years ago and suggest an autochthonous domestication for the latter (Blench and MacDonald 2000; Bradly et al. 1996; Caramelli 2006). Linguistic research also provides help in supporting the CPE’s theory. The detailed work done by Ehret (2006) on linguistic stratigraphies in North-eastern Africa revealed how terms connected with cattle herding are older than those associated with agriculture, chronologically placing their origin at the beginning of the Holocene. […]
To sum up, Nubia is Egypt’s African ancestor. What linked Ancient Egypt to the rest of the North African cultures is this strong tie with the Nubian pastoral nomadic lifestyle, the same pastoral background commonly shared by most of the ancient Saharan and modern sub-Saharan societies. Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition.
~Gatto M. 2009.
The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa: A View from the Archaeological Record
Egypt in its African Context: BAR S2204- Archaeopress. 21-29
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
from the same era (5th dynasty) : Ptahkhenuwy and his wife, 5th Dynasty, Old Kingdom
They have similar facial traits, unique to the region.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: I see no differences with ancient times.
Yeah, I see what your problem is. You think your opinion matter.
Can you tell us what you know about ancient Egyptian art?
quote:Abstract
The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical changes over a great deal of time. This study seeks to evaluate the relationships of Nubian and Egyptian groups in the context of the original peopling event. Cranial nonmetric traits from 18 Nubian and Egyptian samples, spanning Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia and approximately 7400 years, were analyzed using Mahalanobis D2 as a measure of biological distance. A principal coordinates analysis and spatial-temporal model were applied to these data. The results reveal temporal and spatial patterning consistent with documented events in Egyptian and Nubian population history. Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos maintained genetic similarity among the populations”
~K Godde July 2018 A new analysis interpreting Nilotic relationships and peopling of the Nile Valley
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
from the same era (5th dynasty) : Ptahkhenuwy and his wife, 5th Dynasty, Old Kingdom
They have similar facial traits, unique to the region.
LOL your statue look burned ...also what is the origin of these depicted people ? which period ? Where?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: LOL your statue look burned ...also what is the origin of these depicted people ? which period ? Where?
So, how come the white parts aren't burned? lol
Logic is not your friend.
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
"The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World.We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations" Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
Again no link with SSA and absolutely not negroid.
Also the ancestors of early upper egyptians (pre dynastic egyptians) were badarians and guess what : "There is a badarian affiliation to North africans, not sub-saharan samples." (Irish & Konigsberg;2007).
"the jebel Sahaba sample show closest phenetic affinity contemporary sub-saharan Africans." (Holliday; 2013) and " Jebel Sahaba and kerma were significantly different from the el-badari and Hierakonpolis results." (Stock et al; 2011) so badarians were not SSA.
Also : " Badari (has) no biological affinities with nubian groups" (Godde; 2009b)
"Badarian crania classified well with the Gizeh (E series) sample" (Keita; 1990) ---> " Giza (E series) clustered with a series of European Neolithic groups and with North africa" (Brace; 1993)
"All of these features are also present in Europeans and West Asians to some degree but are uncommon in Sub-saharan peoples. Craniometric indicators appear to support these results, and European-like discrete traits, such as alveolar orthognathism, dolichocephaly, rhomboid orbits, narrow nasal aperture, and nasal sill, are prevalent" "...they appear distinct from post-Pleistocene sub-saharan Africans." (J.D. Irish; 2000)
"...Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their cranio-facial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-saharan Africans." (Brace;1993)
"...the predynastic sample from Upper Egypt lies very close to the West Eurasian group...their closest relatives appear to be western Eurasians and coastal North Africans....Notice that the pooled group of Sub-Saharan Africans from the southern ,central, and western regions of the continent does not resemble Egyptians at all : this group is plotted very distant from both ancient egyptian samples. Similar conclusions are reached by Howells (1989, 1995) and Froment (1992, 1994)." (Brace; 1993)
"The EPD sample at Gebelein was significantly biologically distant to the MK Nubian sample." (Zakrzewski; 2003)
"Evidence of Neolithic migration from the Near East is supported by the introduction of domestic animals like cows, sheep and goats to North africa." (Henn et al; 2012)
"For a long time the Badarian was considered to have emerged from the south...the theory that the Badarian originated in the south is, however, no longer accepted." (Shaw; 2003)
that's a good one for you Ase : "The Badarian epoch was apparently absent from Lower Nubia, suggesting that this early farming culture must have originated somewhere north of Aswan and that the center of earliest Predynastic developement was in Egypt proper." (Hoffman; 1993)
"The contemporary North African gene pool diverged from the Near Eastern one and expanded in North Africa before the Holocene, a concept jointly confirmed by mtDNA and nuclear genomic data." (Pereira et al.,2010b; Henn et al., 2012; Podgorna et al.,2013; Fregel et al, 2013)
So now Ase good luck to debunk all of this.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^Most of what you’ve posted was already debunked. lol This just shows how illogical your reasoning is.
quote: Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition.
~Gatto M. 2009.
The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa: A View from the Archaeological Record Egypt in its African Context: BAR S2204- Archaeopress. 21-29
quote: Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample.
~Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
quote: More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002).
~AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007), Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528 Introduction to Research at Naqada Region
quote:“The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002)
~D. Usai, S. Salvatori, T. Jakob & R. David The Al Khiday Cemetery in Central Sudan and its “Classic/Late Meroitic” Period Graves Journal of African Archaeology, Volume 12 (2), 2014, pages 183-204, DOI 10.3213/2191-5784-10254
quote: Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples
~T. W. Holliday* 2013 Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
quote: "As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups
[...]
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK.
quote: Figure 1: Images of North African prehistoric rock and cave paintings. From (a, b) Swimmer’s Cave (Wadi Sura, southern Egypt), (c) the Ennedi massif (northeastern Chad) and (d) Zolat el Hammad, Wadi Howar (northern Sudan).
Paleoclimate and archaeological evidence tells us that, 11,000-5,000 years ago, the Earth's slow orbital 'wobble' transformed today's Sahara desert to a land covered with vegetation and lakes.
quote:"They clearly show that, despite the presence of domesticates, fish predominate in the animal bone assemblages. In this sense, there is continuity with the earlier Holocene occupation from the Fayum, starting ca. 7350 BC. Domesticated plants and animals appear first from approximately 5400 BC. The earliest possible evidence for domesticates in Egypt are the very controversial domesticated cattle from the 9th/8th millennium BC in the Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba area."
~Veerle Linseele et al. PLoS One. 2014; 9(10): e108517. Published online 2014 Oct 13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108517 PMCID: PMC4195595 New Archaeozoological Data from the Fayum “Neolithic” with a Critical Assessment of the Evidence for Early Stock Keeping in Egypt
Remember this rant: "All your studies are outdated or made by afrocentrists"". LOL
From where did Brace receive the samples he used in that 1993 paper? lol
Brace; 1993, J.D. Irish; 2000
quote: Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt
Michał Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabaciński, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts. Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization.
quote: "Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis).
Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Also here some reconstructions :
Sub Saharan remains. lol
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Also here some reconstructions :
Sub Saharan remains. lol
???
Posted by Nassbean (Member # 23084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^Most of what you’ve posted was already debunked. lol This just shows how illogical your reasoning is.
quote: Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition.
~Gatto M. 2009.
The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa: A View from the Archaeological Record Egypt in its African Context: BAR S2204- Archaeopress. 21-29
quote: Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample.
~Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
quote: More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002).
~AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007), Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528 Introduction to Research at Naqada Region
quote: []b“The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples,[/b] while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002)
~D. Usai, S. Salvatori, T. Jakob & R. David The Al Khiday Cemetery in Central Sudan and its “Classic/Late Meroitic” Period Graves Journal of African Archaeology, Volume 12 (2), 2014, pages 183-204, DOI 10.3213/2191-5784-10254
quote: Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples
~T. W. Holliday* 2013 Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
quote: "As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups
[...]
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK.
quote: Figure 1: Images of North African prehistoric rock and cave paintings. From (a, b) Swimmer’s Cave (Wadi Sura, southern Egypt), (c) the Ennedi massif (northeastern Chad) and (d) Zolat el Hammad, Wadi Howar (northern Sudan).
Paleoclimate and archaeological evidence tells us that, 11,000-5,000 years ago, the Earth's slow orbital 'wobble' transformed today's Sahara desert to a land covered with vegetation and lakes.
quote:"They clearly show that, despite the presence of domesticates, fish predominate in the animal bone assemblages. In this sense, there is continuity with the earlier Holocene occupation from the Fayum, starting ca. 7350 BC. Domesticated plants and animals appear first from approximately 5400 BC. The earliest possible evidence for domesticates in Egypt are the very controversial domesticated cattle from the 9th/8th millennium BC in the Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba area."
~Veerle Linseele et al. PLoS One. 2014; 9(10): e108517. Published online 2014 Oct 13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108517 PMCID: PMC4195595 New Archaeozoological Data from the Fayum “Neolithic” with a Critical Assessment of the Evidence for Early Stock Keeping in Egypt
quote:Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
~Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009 Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians.
quote:To sum up, Nubia is Egypt’s African ancestor. What linked Ancient Egypt to the rest of the North African cultures is this strong tie with the Nubian pastoral nomadic lifestyle, the same pastoral background commonly shared by most of the ancient Saharan and modern sub-Saharan societies. Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition.
~Gatto M. 2009. The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa: A View from the Archaeological Record
quote:“Pottery from Al Khiday (Khartoum, Sudan), where a number of sites with well-preserved stratified archaeological sequences have been excavated and radiometrically dated to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (7000–4000 calibrated BC), was archaeometrically analysed with the main aim of quantifying the textural parameters of the inclusions in the ceramic pastes. A set of 360 samples was studied, and quantitative and qualitative information was obtained regarding paste production recipes and the raw materials used over time.
Three main petrographic groups were identified, according to contents in alkali-feldspar and quartz, and the grain-size of quartz inclusions. Further sub-groups were defined and described in terms of grain-size distribution and abundance of the various types of inclusions. Digital image analysis on both scanning electron back-scattered images and elemental maps enabled validation of petrographic groups by quantitative description of the type, abundance and shape of inclusions, and the inclusion-to-matrix ratio. Correlations among the paste production recipes and decorative motifs revealed changes in production technology over time.”
~Gregorio Dal Sassoa et al. Discriminating pottery production by image analysis: a case study of Mesolithic and Neolithic pottery from Al Khiday (Khartoum, Sudan)
quote: The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical changes over a great deal of time.
This study seeks to evaluate the relationships of Nubian and Egyptian groups in the context of the original peopling event. Cranial nonmetric traits from 18 Nubian and Egyptian samples, spanning Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia and approximately 7400 years, were analyzed using Mahalanobis D2 as a measure of biological distance. A principal coordinates analysis and spatial-temporal model were applied to these data. The results reveal temporal and spatial patterning consistent with documented events in Egyptian and Nubian population history. Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos maintained genetic similarity among the populations”
~K Godde July 2018 A new analysis interpreting Nilotic relationships and peopling of the Nile Valley
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
watch the insults please
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
It's cool.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Ok so now about affinities between upper egyptians and lower nubians just take a look please :
“E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.” ~Hisham Y. Hassan et al.
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: "The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal "ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times."Schuenemann et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods". Nature Communications, 2017
I also have the haplogroups of the 90 mummies of abusir and none of them show ssa haplogroups
It is based on Bayesian and Markov statistics. So not because they don't show it it doesn't exist. lol smh
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
I also have the haplogroups of the 90 mummies of abusir and none of them show ssa haplogroups
If E1b1b1a1b2-V22, E-M78 is 7200-9800 years old and relates to some SSA's, how can it be that they didn’t cluster this in that “study”?
E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.
~Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
I also have the haplogroups of the 90 mummies of abusir and none of them show ssa haplogroups
they tested only 3 for YDNA and one was V22
V22 has the highest frequencies in the Saho, a Cushitic people mainly in Eritrea
Berbers have most of the Eurasian DNA on their maternal side but their paternal side is typically more African
Had they determined the YDNA of more of the Aubsir el Meleq mummies they too may have found a lot more African DNA in their paternal ancestry
quote:E-V22 is mainly an eastern African sub-haplogroup, with frequencies of more than 80% in the Saho population from Eritrea, but it has also been reported in Egypt and Morocco
--The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages 2018
Fulvio Cruciani
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Ok first let’s weed out stuff that’s mostly irrelevant: The stuff that has me going “why was this posted?” I’d like to make it clear that I haven’t forgotten it, it’s just that it’s irrelevant. And while I will entertain a detour here and there, I’m not going to do it for every useless quote attempting to refute my present position.
quote: "The EPD sample at Gebelein was significantly biologically distant to the MK Nubian sample." (Zakrzewski; 2003)
This does not appear to be a direct quote. It seems you are quoting a paraphrasing of Zakrzewski from eupedia. To which they say:
quote: "Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length."
So tibiae length is how races are determined? There’s a reason I didn’t really discuss the “super tropical body plans” as evidence of race. Bear in mind I could discuss proportional population affinities, but I personally am not seeing much reason in doing so unless someone can create a very strong case that limb proportions are features that have very much if anything to do with how people are divided racially by globalists. Have at it.
quote: "The contemporary North African gene pool diverged from the Near Eastern one and expanded in North Africa before the Holocene, a concept jointly confirmed by mtDNA and nuclear genomic data." (Pereira et al.,2010b; Henn et al., 2012; Podgorna et al.,2013; Fregel et al, 2013)
What does this have to do with race/phenotype?
quote:"Evidence of Neolithic migration from the Near East is supported by the introduction of domestic animals like cows, sheep and goats to North africa." (Henn et al; 2012)
What does this have to do with phenotype? Let’s suppose the Near East introduced domestic animals. Let’s even suppose without any genetic data from southern Egypt that they’re strongly related to non-Black MENA peoples. What would that genetic relationship have to do with phenotype? Why are you still trying to link them genetically to the Near East as though this would prove their phenotype (race)? How can races exist genetically if highly genetically dissimilar populations have been labeled Black?
So this person wouldn’t be labeled Black? You’re really going to try it huh? Okay. No one here’s going to listen to such nonsense, but go ahead. And while this comment does have little to do with the conversation, I’ll cut you a bit of a break since I was reading about cattle. May as well have a read of it.
quote: "Morphological and genetic research seems to provide further support for the topic. According to Grigson (1991, 2000) Egyptian cattle of the 4th millennium BC were morphologically distinct from Eurasian cattle (Bos taurus) and Zebu (Bos indicus), meaning that African cattle may have been domesticated from the local wild Bos primigenius before the aforementioned date.... The zoological, genetic and linguistic studies thus not only suggest an African origin for cattle domestication, but also provide a precise time frame and geographical location which, generally speaking, fits well with that proposed by the CPE (Combined Prehistoric Expedition). A further element which might give support to the matter comes from the archaeological record, namely the pottery."
Make your own thread to discuss this though. Just thought you might like to read it.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
(Brace, 1993) related responses
quote: "...Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their cranio-facial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-saharan Africans." (Brace;1993)
And I’m going to stop with the snipped versions of the papers you cite. The extended version of the quote he gave me goes more like this:
quote: One of the most common ways of assessing population relationships has been the comparative analysis of skull types. Such a study was carried out by the physical anthropologist C. Loring Brace and five co-researchers (Brace et al., 1993) who statistically analyzed a range of 24 cranial measurements from diverse world samples, including ancient Egyptians. The results of the analysis suggest that ancient Egyptian crania had elements in common with those from Southwest Asia and Neolithic Europe, as well as North and Northeast Africa. However, the Egyptian skulls showed very little similarity to African crania from the more distant south and west. The plot below shows, as accurately as is possible in two dimensions, the relationships between craniofacial configurations of the various regional samples. The predynastic sample from Upper Egypt lies very close to the West Eurasian group but also shows tendencies toward some neighboring African groups; this should not be surprising given Egypt's geographical position near the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe. The northern Egyptians deviate even more strongly from the tropical African pattern, and indeed their closest relatives appear to be western Eurasians and coastal North Africans. Notice that the pooled group of Sub-Saharan Africans from the southern, central, and western regions of the continent does not resemble Egyptians at all: this group is plotted very distant from both ancient Egyptian samples. Similar conclusions are reached by Howells (1989, 1995) and Froment (1992, 1994).
And notice what happened when a single East African sample was allowed: Brace’s one East African “Somalia” sample pitted against MANY “Eurasian” samples across time. That one sample beat out Late period northern Egypt, Northern Africa, the Levant and the Middle East sample. I’ll post another point by ES/ESR (Charlie Bass):
quote: After reading an anthropology book from W.W. Howells [Who's Who in Skulls: Ethnic Identification of Crania From Measurements (pg. 95)] I must make some comments about C. Loring Brace and his methods. Howells noted that Brace's 24 measurements that he uses emphasize the nasal area of the skull and not much more, well as has been pointed out in another thread I started, nasal form alone is not a good way of evaluating population relationships since nasal form is correlated with climate, Brace tries to skirt this issue by admitting that nasal form indeed is correlated to climate but then says based on nonadaptive traits Somalis and Northeast African Nile Valley inhabitants are more related to Northwest Europeans than to "sub-Saharan" Africans. He never states nor points out what these nonadaptive traits are.
Secondly, Brace used posterior probabilities which do *NOT* cluster populations by membership and can be misleading because a group with higher probability of membership in a cluster is not necessarily closely related. If anyone remembers anymore of Brace's work you would remember that based on posterior probabilities modern Europeans and Neanderthals are related, but every other study done shows Neanderthals to be more than significantly distant from *ALL* modern populations, Europeans included.
Nasal form is not enough to determine race. When Black people have noses that look more like Europe or someplace else, it does not really change how they are treated racially. A greater sum of cranial data is needed. Hell noses alone aren't even good for establishing kinship. People as far removed from time and space as modern Indians, and people living all the way in Neolithic Europe were more closely related to Upper Egyptians than Nubians living right next door for thousands of years? Neolithic Europeans and Indians are more related to the Upper Egyptians than even Near Easterners and late period Egyptians? Neanderthals and modern Europeans are closely related?
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
For the “But no the Badarian are not—” posts.
quote:"Badarian crania classified well with the Gizeh (E series) sample" (Keita; 1990) ---> " Giza (E series) clustered with a series of European Neolithic groups and with North africa" (Brace; 1993)
Let’s provide some additional context to what was said:
quote: Relationships among Badari, Naqada, and Kerma have not always been overt in the skeletal data. Berry et al. (1967) concluded from their nonmetric analysis that their Badarian sample differed significantly from Naqada and Kerma, but was closely related to the Gizeh sample. Their study included the same samples as this analysis, but yielded results that are different from the current study and the craniometric research. Berry et al. (1967) employed a completely different range of statistics, which may account for the difference between the two conclusions. However, Berry and her coauthors also noted homogeneity across all the Egyptian groups, including Naqada and those that pre- and post-date the sample. This is indeed the case here, as is evidenced in the PCO plot; the Egyptians appear to be relatively homogeneously grouped. Some Badarian crania also classified well with the Gizeh sample (Keita, 1990).
Some. Some Badarian crania did.
Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
To look at it more generally, Naqada most closely resembles Christian period Nubians in Semna between 550-1350 AD (younger Nubians). Badarians most closely resembled Kerma Nubians between 1900-1600 B.C. As a whole, E Series clusters closest to 12th dynasty Lisht. The Godde 2009b quote seems to be another distortion of whatever was truly said by an author. The quote does not trace back to any study and Godde's research says the opposite of there being unrelatedness between southern Egypt and Nubia.
quote:S.O.Y. Keita and A. J. Boyce (Institute of Biological Anthropology, Oxford University) 2002
Badarian crania were studied with European and African series from the Howells’ database, using generalized distances and cluster analyses (neighbour joining and UPGMA algorithms)Greater affinity is found with the African series. The Badarian crania have a modal metric phenotype that is clearly 'southern'; most classify into the Kerma (Nubian), Gaboon, and Kenyan groups NO Badarian cranium in any analysis classified into the European series.
quote:"The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results." [Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern African, p. 40]
quote: "For a long time the Badarian was considered to have emerged from the south...the theory that the Badarian originated in the south is, however, no longer accepted." (Shaw; 2003)
Let’s expand the context of this:
Shaw says:
quote: "The origins of the Badarian are equally problematic, having been sought in all directions. For a long time the Badarian was considered to have emerged from the south, because it was thought that the Badarians had 'poor knowledge' of chert, which would show that they came from the non calcareous part of Egypt to the south; on the other hand, the origins of agriculture and animal husbandry were assumed to lie in the Near East. The theory that the Badarian originated in the south is, however, no longer accepted. The selection of chert is perfectly logical for the Badarian lithic technology, which seems to show links to the Late Neolithic from the Western Desert. Rippled pottery, one of the most characteristic features of the Badarian, probably developed from burnished and smudged pottery, which is present both in the late Sahara Neolithic sites and from Mermidia in the north down to the Khartoum Neolithic sites in the south. Rippled pottery may have been a local development of a Saharan tradition. It seems obvious that the Badarian culture did not appear from a single source, although the Western Desert was probably the predominant one. On the other hand, the provenance of domesticated pants and animals remains controversial: An origin in the Levant via Lower Egyptian Faiyum and Mermedia cultures, might be possible.
He's assuming the people from the western desert have no connection to Nubia/Sudan. And no chert is not the only reason people have suspected a connection to Sudan.
quote: ON THE WAY TO ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CIVILISATION
It may be stated now that there are many indications confirming the close relationship between the inhabitants of the Western Desert and the Nile valley as represented by mythological and symbolical representations in the Cave of the Beasts. These depictions shed a completely new light on several cornerstones of ancient Egyptian concepts of the world and their state.59 They clarify and create a proper context of the Nabta Playa evidence and also help us understand the sudden complexity of predynastic Upper Egyptian cultures. The scenes of the Cave of the Beasts prove that there was a significant social complexity comprised in a community that produced its artistic decorations (e.g., the chieftain and subjugated enemies). At the same time, this community had significant intellectual capability to comprehend their surrounding environment with the help of complex mythological compositions that later on became a characteristic part of ancient Egyptian culture and religion (fig. 42).
The Badarians at some point traversing the western desert, does not disprove they had connections further south. Shaw presumes a false dichotomy: That movement from the western desert makes impossible old connections to Sudan. And even if the dichotomy proposed was valid it doesn’t prove that Nubians spanning into Sudan were not developing their own variation of pharaonic culture/civilization alongside Egyptians during the predynastic. Arguing that they may not be directly ancestral or even remotely related is actually quite the shot in the foot as it suggests that a bunch of unrelated Black Africans were developing local variations of a common culture that were more developmentally in common than whatever the hell was going on in the northern parts of Egypt.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Discussing the “Irish” papers
quote: "All of these features are also present in Europeans and West Asians to some degree but are uncommon in Sub-saharan peoples. Craniometric indicators appear to support these results, and European-like discrete traits, such as alveolar orthognathism, dolichocephaly, rhomboid orbits, narrow nasal aperture, and nasal sill, are prevalent" "...they appear distinct from post-Pleistocene sub-saharan Africans." (J.D. Irish; 2000)
Less common does not mean it's hard to find or that you can't be Black. Sub Saharan Africa especially is home to the most physical diversity in the world. So naturally certain features may be less common in Black Africans and other Black peoples, but it does not however mean they aren’t Black. Globalists haven’t stopped treating as Black the Black people that deviate from Irish’s “true negro.” Blacks do not need to have things like a wide nasal aperture or prognathism to be Black. Irish is a notorious offender of deemphasizing East Africans (especially Sudanese and Ethiopians) as Black in his works (though they are essentially so in real life). In fact, much of Sub Saharan Africa IS Ethiopian. Ethiopia represents one of the largest populations of Sub Saharan Africans in Africa. They are not a “small oversight.” About one in 10 Sub Saharan Africans are and we haven’t even gotten to other horners. But Irish being Irish, pools people far removed from the region Ancient Egyptians came from (Eastern Africa) and describes that sample as a “true negro” or a “true Sub Saharan” sample. His research frequently omits Eastern Africa or infers it as separate. That would be fine if he were attempting to in the process suggest that certain Sub Saharans look more like the Upper Egyptians than others (but that both are still Black), but he’s not.
And whaddya know, Sub Saharan Ethiopians cluster closest to Upper Egyptians. The next closest are Nubians. Poor lil’ tink tink.
More from Irish:
quote: Also the ancestors of early upper egyptians (pre dynastic egyptians) were badarians and guess what : "There is a badarian affiliation to North africans, not sub-saharan samples." (Irish & Konigsberg;2007).
For a more expanded context:
quote:“However, there is also one major difference; Mukherjee and associates placed their Badarian Egyptian sample within the sub-Saharan cluster, while puzzling over this unexpected affinity (Mukherjee et al., 1955: 86). Inspection of the original D2 matrix (their Table 5.6: 84) does, in reality, indicate a Badarian affiliation to North Africans, not sub-Saharan samples. It is therefore likely that an error was made in construction of their original figure when converting inter-sample distances to x- and y-coordinates.”
What are some problems we can find with the study? Well it’s an Irish study so you’re probably going to get: Overrepresentation of groups of very far distance (West and South Africans) and underrepresentation of East Africans. This collection of people will either be pooled together or the only “Sub Saharans” plotted on the graph to prove a point about “Sub Saharan Africa.” Let’s dig in shall we? Yes, yes.
Who can spot what he’s doing before I show the next graphs?
Where are the modern north Africans on this? What's that, nowhere? So can you guess how he classified A-Group, B-Group, C-Group, D-Group, X-Group and Kerma Nubians? Sudanese that were closer spatially and chronologically were labeled as the “North Africans.” For "Sub Saharans" he uses mostly modern and spatially distant West African samples from: Cameroon, Ghana, Gabon, and Nigeria. Only two samples TIG/ETH and TAI are East African. His results look something like this:
And then (of course) he concludes:
quote: “Mukherjee et al. (1955) is presented in Figure 4. It too displays a separation between the sub-Saharan and North African samples, with an intermediate, yet distinct position for Jebel Moya.”
Well I guess if you reclassify all the Sudanese as “North Africans” and only have a couple East African samples (one of which is Ethiopian) anyone could arrive to this conclusion. It doesn’t make for a great paper, but it can be done. And the Ethiopian sample does not display a good separation between Sub Saharan and “North African” samples. What we see is ETH/TIG cluster with Egyptians/Sudanese. The TIG sample clusters with the Nubians, and Naqada while TAI is closer to the Badarian than the Egyptian E series is. Phenotypically the Ethiopians and East Africans are better estimations of what the Naqada/Badarian Egyptians would’ve looked like than the Egyptian E. I’m sure there are many other methodological problems in this people can pick apart. But this was the quickest to notice given that this was an Irish study. And then let’s not forget that in his other study the Ethiopians cluster again with the Egyptians.
Whoopsies!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Berbers have most of the Eurasian DNA on their maternal side but their paternal side is typically more African
1) What is considered “Eurasian”?
2) They tested a Greek-Roman enclave that was highly contaminated.
3) They used Bayesian and Markov statistics.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: They tested a Greek-Roman enclave that was highly contaminated.
what is your evidence contaminated samples were used?
Contaminated how?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: They tested a Greek-Roman enclave that was highly contaminated.
what is your evidence contaminated samples were used?
Contaminated how?
They were in the public space for over 100 years, or something close to that.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
quote:
from the same era (5th dynasty) : Ptahkhenuwy and his wife, 5th Dynasty, Old Kingdom
They're from different regions of Egypt:
quote:At his accession, Mentuhotepcontrolled Upper Egypt from Aswan to This [Abydos], an ancient city about 90 miles (145 km) north of Thebes, his capital.
from the same era (5th dynasty) : Ptahkhenuwy and his wife, 5th Dynasty, Old Kingdom
They are not of the same era. Gebor, why didn't you say anything? The stone head of Mentuhotep II is 11th dynasty
Nassbean, don't know what your point is Ptahkhenuwy is brown skinned here and he and his wife are both depicted here wide noses Paintings and painted sculptures of Kings are all most always this shade of brown or darker.
Mentuhotep II, 11th dynasty
____________
Queen Hatshepsut, 18th dynasty
No expert knows why some of the wives of nobles are sometimes depicted yellow skinned. There is more than one theory. But the more powerful queens are most often the same brown as their husbands
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:The researchers say they applied a rigorous selection criterion to avoid ‘contaminated’ samples. “We built genomic libraries that immortalise nearly every DNA molecule of extracted DNA,” says Wolfgang Haak, co-author and molecular anthropologist at Max Planck.
quote:To determine the most suitable parameter set and substitution method, we used jModelTest v2.1.10 (ref. 65) and selected the parameters suggested by the Akaike and Bayesian information criterion (AIC and BIC). [...] We used the 90 mitochondrial genomes obtained in this study, together with 135 modern Egyptian mtDNA genomes from Pagani and colleagues17 and Kujanova and colleagues30 for Bayesian reconstruction of population size changes through time. [...] We conducted Bayesian inference using strict clock with an uninformative CTMC reference prior for each partition and Bayesian SkyGrid tree prior with 50 parameters (gamma prior with shape 0.001 and scale 1,000). [...] The obtained Bayesian SkyGrid plot indicates a fairly stable slightly decreasing effective population size for the studied population over the last 5,000 years (Fig. 3d and Supplementary Fig. 2).
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: No expert knows why some of the wives of nobles are sometimes depicted yellow skinned. There is more than one theory. But the more powerful queens are most often the same brown as their husbands
Which is odd, since many whites insist on being the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: many whites insist on being the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
name one
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: many whites insist on being the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
name one
What do you mean name one? Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: many whites insist on being the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
name one
What do you mean name one?
Show us an quote by a white person who says they are a descendant of the ancient Egyptians
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
What about MENA that still think they're white? Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: many whites insist on being the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
name one
What do you mean name one?
Show us an quote by a white person who says they are a descendant of the ancient Egyptians
How am I supposed to do that? Lol
Anyway there is a website called Quora. On that site you’ll find many whites making those claims. And it’s not just there.
It’s on many different platforms as well, including your Hollywood films.
I just love it how you put up this naively ignorant act as if you don’t know what’s going on. It’s highly amusing and laughable.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)