This is topic What is "black" exactly ? in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=013216

---

Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
 
Coming from Europe, I feel like there is a whole different approach between us and americans about what is black and what isn't. Where I live "black" is generally a label describing populations coming from Sub-Saharan Africa defined by "negroid" traits, dark skin, frizzy hair, etc even though personally I don't consider people from the Horn of Africa as exactly similar to their "bantu" or "nilotic" neighbours but more as mixed. Here we don't consider dark arabs/north africans as black nor do we see mulattoes as black but we see the latter as "métisses" "mixed" people.

Therefore such people might be seen as black in the US but not in Europe or MENA :





I also noticed (and understand why) "blacks" in america tend to all get lumped together behind this label and identify primarly with it while where I live a wolof speaking muslim senegalese will certainly not feel some kind of kinship with a lingala speaking christian congolese (let alone horners who tend to feel closer to "arabs") even though in some specific contexts they might view themselves as simply "blacks".


That is why I think many members here despite claiming not descending from ancient egyptians still fight for them being recognized as "blacks" because in the end it appears to be all reduced to a secular fight between "Whites" and the oppressed "blacks" which is kind of ridiculous because you will never see a moroccan taking pride in Iranian history or a german taking pride in yemenite History claiming it as "white civilizations".


I'm not surprised when afro-americans view ancient egyptians as black or even many modern egyptians as black when they consider people like colin kaepernick or stephen Curry as such. I've even see many of them claiming UP Europeans, Iberomaurusians or even dravidians were black simply because they had/have dark skin.

In my case, I try to keep the most neutral approach possible based on scientific/historical facts :

I try to respect Africa's inner diversity whether in terms of genetics or cultures knowing that "black" could only be meaningfull in specific contexts where two physically vastly different populations interacted with each other.

The "diversity" among afro-americans that is often emphasized here is actually the product of eurasian ancestry (and even sometimes amerindian ancestry) of mostly NW european origin same cases are also found in the old world with modern anatolians having central asian ancestry, south asians having onge-like ancestry, horners having near eastern ancestry, north africans having west african ancestry, etc etc

Some populations remained "purer" because of isolation, carry very deep ancestry and can lack mutations found among other populations. And it's such populations that I will retain as more "typically" black. In general such groups would be recognized as "negroid" in forensic anthropology but would additionally have dark pigmentation and frizzy hair. That's what I would define as "black". We're dealing with continuums not with strictly defined groups therefore I take such diversity into account and certainly won't view west africans, san people and ethiopians as simply "blacks".


If you disagree with such point of view tell me why pls or what is wrong about it ?
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
But not all horn Africans have thin features set,from what I recall,there are east Africans whose features some may consider more stereotypically African even if the aren't exactly the same.

Though a bit soft, Halima Aden doesn't look so different from Jackie Aina.


 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
the Germans did take pride in Aryan history,which was suppose to be part of a language group and if I'm not mistaken,the people weren't blondes with blue eyes.
 

---

Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
But not all horn Africans have thin features set,from what I recall,there are east Africans whose features some may consider more stereotypically African even if the aren't exactly the same.

Though a bit soft, Halima Aden doesn't look so that different from Jackie Aina.

---

Yes but as a whole they are quite distinct physically from most bantus or south sudanese. I can easily recognized them IRL + phenotype isn't always in phase with genotype so it wouldn't prevent them from having 30-50% eurasian ancestry unlike most niger-congo people (except fulanis who have north african ancestry)
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

http://cyclinghighasia.blogspot.com/2011/07/tajikistan-khorog-to-karakul-via.html


The interpretation is subjective everywhere.
In America it generally is applied to dark skinned people almost always with afro type hair and who are of African decent.
But many on Egyptsearch think that is a racial stereotype and the instead older definition should be applied, that classically "black" would pertain to anybody with dark skin.
Again this is subjective as to how dark "black" is
And there is a political variation on this, black defined as non-European with skin anything darker than pale.
Some people will also use more than one definition, saying "Black" is skin color alone applied to history and anthropology but in everyday conversation the social norm is accepted as pertaining to of African descent alone (with a few exceptions Andaman islanders, Negritos, etc )

Here are some of the optional definitions of "black"


Black

1) A person primarily of deep rooted African descent

2) "Black" is an obsolete social construct applied to certain brown skinned people that along with "white" should no longer be used. References to "dark skinned" are acceptable but knowing there is no standard to use it in an exact measured way

3) Any person with dark skin

4) Any person who is not primarily European and with the slightest tint of brown or darker

5) Any person who is dark skinned excluding unusual individuals in a population that is otherwise "light skinned"

6) Any person who is not of tropical or Southern hemisphere ancestry and with the slightest tint of brown or darker

7) 18th century and earlier European definition:
dark skinned people including Africans and all others including Europeans who are not pale skinned with the tiniest hint of brown
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
I guess,if you only reduce the word to a color description. The difference between the two individuals is relegated to their heads.
 

---

Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


The interpretation is subjective everywhere.
In America it generally is applied to dark skinned people almost always with afro type hair and who are of African decent.
But many on Egyptsearch think that is a racial stereotype and the instead older definition should be applied, that classically "black" would pertain to anybody with dark skin.
Again this is subjective as to how dark "black" is
And there is a political variation on this, black defined as non-European with skin anything darker than pale.
Some people will also use more than one definition, saying "Black" is skin color alone applied to history and anthropology but in everyday conversation the social norm is accepted as pertaining to of African descent alone (with a few exceptions Andaman islanders, Negritos, etc )

Here are some of the optional definitions of "black"


Black

1) A person primarily of deep rooted African descent

2) "Black" is an obsolete social construct applied to certain brown skinned people that along with "white" should no longer be used. References to "dark skinned" are acceptable but knowing there is no standard to use it in an exact measured way

3) Any person with dark skin

4) Any person who is not primarily European and with the slightest tint of brown or darker

5) Any person who is dark skinned excluding unusual individuals in a population that is otherwise "light skinned"

6) Any person who is not of tropical or Southern hemisphere ancestry and with the slightest tint of brown or darker

7) 18th century and earlier European definition:
dark skinned people including Africans and all others including Europeans who are not pale skinned with the tiniest hint of brown

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
South(sub.) Sahara Africa is suppose to be a geographic term,because most East Africans live below the Sahara desert.
Check the link,I don't want to stretch the thread.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HM5BW8/vector-map-of-the-sahara-desert-and-sahel-zone-HM5BW8.jpg

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
Where I live "black" is generally a label describing populations coming from Sub-Saharan Africa defined by "negroid" traits, dark skin, frizzy hair, etc even though personally I don't consider people from the Horn of Africa as exactly similar to their "bantu" or "nilotic" neighbours but more as mixed.

You are aware some Euros defined some Nilotic group as a negroes mixed with Africans from the horn?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

I totally agree about the subjective nature of such label but generally in discussions about ethnicity and history, when people defend the idea of ancient egyptians not being black they usually mean they didn't look like most of modern sub-saharan africans nor would they be viewed as black by most modern people if they were alive.

---

yes but in the arts some ancient Egyptians look
do indeed look stereotypic Sub-Saharan and others don't. You have to be honest about that and not cherry pick to try to hide it, instead show both types (and the cherry picking can be done from either side)
.


.



Amenhotep III
Louvre Museum, Paris
section removed from temple wall
KV22, temple of Amenhotep III
.


.



Ramesses II,
Brooklyn Museum

.

So here we have different types depicted

So you can't say there are no stereotypic "sub-Saharan" types represented and there are ongoing examples as well as other examples that do not fit the type

But like I said at Egyptsearch many go by the what they see as the classical definition,
"black" pertains to skin color alone

Thus while depictions of Ramesses II will vary the paintings are consistently this type of skin tone, to categorize as "black"
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
Those are obviously dark whites,this is the white whites of Europe.


 

---

Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

I totally agree about the subjective nature of such label but generally in discussions about ethnicity and history, when people defend the idea of ancient egyptians not being black they usually mean they didn't look like most of modern sub-saharan africans nor would they be viewed as black by most modern people if they were alive.

---

yes but in the arts some ancient Egyptians look
do indeed look stereotypic Sub-Saharan and others don't. You have to be honest about that and not cherry pick to try to hide it, instead show both types (and the cherry picking can be done from either side)
.


.



Amenhotep III
Louvre Museum, Paris
section removed from temple wall
KV22, temple of Amenhotep III
.


.


Ramesses II,
Brooklyn Museum

.

So here we have different types depicted

So you can't say there are no stereotypic "sub-Saharan" types represented and there are ongoing examples as well as other examples that do not fit the type

But like I said at Egyptsearch many go by the what they see as the classical definition,
"black" pertains to skin color alone

Thus while depictions of Ramesses II will vary the paintings are consistently this type of skin tone, to categorize as "black"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

Well I've been to the louvres (got some pictures from there) and most artifacts we have rarely show SSA types which might be indicative of these SSA types being nubian since nubians have been part of Egypt's society for a long time whether in the army or even in high political sphere. When I was at the Louvres I was surprised to see that the Old kingdom artifacts actually looked more homogeneous and more "eurasian" than the later dynasties of the New kingdom.

If the classical definition is only about skin color then they definitely weren't black since most were depicted with a reddish type of tone similar to what modern egyptians have.

---

U.N. based political map, sub-Sahara
Sudan is classified as Northern Africa


Sub-Saharan Africa



If you look at a lot of the Egyptian art
you see some broad stereotypic facial features but ancient Egypt
was a Nile valley river civilization, a river that flows from Tanzania
and another branch beginning in Ethiopia into Sudan and Egypt

It's unremarkable that we will also find in ancient Egypt some of the
African-horn type features there also, some of these are darker skinned yet with
thinner features, these are sub-Saharan as well
and could be older than both West Africans and
prior to mankind leaving Africa

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

If the classical definition is only about skin color then they definitely weren't black since most were depicted with a reddish type of tone similar to what modern egyptians have.

---

this term "black" is applied to dark skinned people basically types of brown including reddish brown

Tutankhamun wooden bust

this is considered a skin tone not uncommon in Africa
 

---

Posted by Ty Daniels (Member # 23186) on :
 
@Antalas AKA Hotepboy AKA Nassabean

I thought you were banned????????

Why do you keep coming back to this site?
 

---

Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ty Daniels:
@Antalas AKA Hotepboy AKA Nassabean

I thought you were banned????????

Why do you keep coming back to this site?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
Coming from Europe, I feel like there is a whole different approach between us and americans about what is black and what isn't. Where I live "black" is generally a label describing populations coming from Sub-Saharan Africa defined by "negroid" traits, dark skin, frizzy hair, etc even though personally I don't consider people from the Horn of Africa as exactly similar to their "bantu" or "nilotic" neighbours but more as mixed. Here we don't consider dark arabs/north africans as black nor do we see mulattoes as black but we see the latter as "métisses" "mixed" people.

Therefore such people might be seen as black in the US but not in Europe or MENA :





I also noticed (and understand why) "blacks" in america tend to all get lumped together behind this label and identify primarly with it while where I live a wolof speaking muslim senegalese will certainly not feel some kind of kinship with a lingala speaking christian congolese (let alone horners who tend to feel closer to "arabs") even though in some specific contexts they might view themselves as simply "blacks".


That is why I think many members here despite claiming not descending from ancient egyptians still fight for them being recognized as "blacks" because in the end it appears to be all reduced to a secular fight between "Whites" and the oppressed "blacks" which is kind of ridiculous because you will never see a moroccan taking pride in Iranian history or a german taking pride in yemenite History claiming it as "white civilizations".


I'm not surprised when afro-americans view ancient egyptians as black or even many modern egyptians as black when they consider people like colin kaepernick or stephen Curry as such. I've even see many of them claiming UP Europeans, Iberomaurusians or even dravidians were black simply because they had/have dark skin.

In my case, I try to keep the most neutral approach possible based on scientific/historical facts :

I try to respect Africa's inner diversity whether in terms of genetics or cultures knowing that "black" could only be meaningfull in specific contexts where two physically vastly different populations interacted with each other.

The "diversity" among afro-americans that is often emphasized here is actually the product of eurasian ancestry (and even sometimes amerindian ancestry) of mostly NW european origin same cases are also found in the old world with modern anatolians having central asian ancestry, south asians having onge-like ancestry, horners having near eastern ancestry, north africans having west african ancestry, etc etc

Some populations remained "purer" because of isolation, carry very deep ancestry and can lack mutations found among other populations. And it's such populations that I will retain as more "typically" black. In general such groups would be recognized as "negroid" in forensic anthropology but would additionally have dark pigmentation and frizzy hair. That's what I would define as "black". We're dealing with continuums not with strictly defined groups therefore I take such diversity into account and certainly won't view west africans, san people and ethiopians as simply "blacks".


If you disagree with such point of view tell me why pls or what is wrong about it ?

---

Secondly you ignored this;




 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt

---

why do you assume the people above have nothing to do with Ancient Egypt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt

---

why do you assume the people above have nothing to do with Ancient Egypt?

---

Why post a picture as though it's supposed to mean anything when there is genetic evidence that says what it is actually is? Modern Egyptians do not have sickle cell, but predynastic Mummies and King Tut did. Modern Egyptians and Sudanese are likely the result of the Arab invasion, since the Arabian peninsula had been originally settled by East African Hamites.

---

I posted the picture because you posted it in your reply

and it's a picture of modern Egyptians


Sickle cell is primarily African but also found in some places in India and Arabia and some rare cases elsewhere
It its rare in modern Egypt except in some oases

The idea that Tutankhamun had sickle cell is a theory. His mummy was never genetically tested for sickle cell to prove it.

In 1999 six predynastic mummies were tested for a sickle cell genetic marker>>

___________________________________________

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11148985/

Use of the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) in the study of HbS in predynastic Egyptian remains
A Marin, 1999

Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper
. May-Jun 1999;75(5-6):27-30.

Abstract
We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders. DNA was extracted from dental samples with a silica-gel method specific for ancient DNA. A modification of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), called amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) was then applied. ARMS is based on specific priming of the PCR and it permits diagnosis of single nucleotide mutations. In this method, amplification can occur only in the presence of the specific mutation being studied. The amplified DNA was analyzed by electrophoresis. In samples of three individuals, there was a band at the level of the HbS mutated fragment, indicating that they were affected by sicklemia. On the basis of our results, we discuss the possible uses of new molecular investigation systems in paleopathological diagnoses of genetic diseases and viral, bacterial and fungal infections.

_________________________________

So since half of the mummies did not have sickle cell then sickle cell is not a requirement for human remains to be pre-dynastic Egypt
 

---

Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
 
You can't be serious with this topic...
 

---

Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt

---

why do you assume the people above have nothing to do with Ancient Egypt?

---

Why post a picture as though it's supposed to mean anything when there is genetic evidence that says what it is actually is? Modern Egyptians do not have sickle cell, but predynastic Mummies and King Tut did. Modern Egyptians and Sudanese are likely the result of the Arab invasion, since the Arabian peninsula had been originally settled by East African Hamites.

---

I posted the picture because you posted it in your reply

and it's a picture of modern Egyptians


Sickle cell is primarily African but also found in some places in India and Arabia and some rare cases elsewhere
It its rare in modern Egypt except in some oases

The idea that Tutankhamun had sickle cell is a theory. His mummy was never genetically tested for sickle cell to prove it.

In 1999 six predynastic mummies were tested for a sickle cell genetic marker>>

___________________________________________

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11148985/

Use of the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) in the study of HbS in predynastic Egyptian remains
A Marin, 1999

Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper
. May-Jun 1999;75(5-6):27-30.

Abstract
We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders. DNA was extracted from dental samples with a silica-gel method specific for ancient DNA. A modification of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), called amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) was then applied. ARMS is based on specific priming of the PCR and it permits diagnosis of single nucleotide mutations. In this method, amplification can occur only in the presence of the specific mutation being studied. The amplified DNA was analyzed by electrophoresis. In samples of three individuals, there was a band at the level of the HbS mutated fragment, indicating that they were affected by sicklemia. On the basis of our results, we discuss the possible uses of new molecular investigation systems in paleopathological diagnoses of genetic diseases and viral, bacterial and fungal infections.

_________________________________

So since half of the mummies did not have sickle cell then sickle cell is not a requirement for human remains to be pre-dynastic Egypt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

Sickle cell is an indicator of Bantu-West African ancestry. If it is found in Asia and Europe then that logically means that Bantu people made their ways to that region as well.

" Rameses III and his son, who came after Tutankhamum, both had a type of Y-chromosome (E1b1a) that is characteristic of black Africans. We can conclude therefore, that there is tentative evidence for the sickle cell mutation in ancient Egyptian populations and that this would have been derived by gene flow from West Africa.

---

Bantu is a language group

Rameses and another mummy were tested and found to be of haplogroup E1b1a.


http://www.nslc.wustl.edu/sicklecell/part3/biogeography.html

However, In West Africa, which is heavily dominated by E1b1a
people the prevalence of the mutant gene for sickle-cell (HbS) is 5-20%
the majority of people there do not have it.


and Tutankhamun, Akhenaten and Amenhotep were tested in 2020 and were found to be of haplogroup R1b
Not of E1b1a

https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/30/R1/R24/5924364

Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Yehia Z Gad et al, 2020
 

---

Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Big O:

Sickle cell is an indicator of Bantu-West African ancestry. If it is found in Asia and Europe then that logically means that Bantu people made their ways to that region as well.

" Rameses III and his son, who came after Tutankhamum, both had a type of Y-chromosome (E1b1a) that is characteristic of black Africans. We can conclude therefore, that there is tentative evidence for the sickle cell mutation in ancient Egyptian populations and that this would have been derived by gene flow from West Africa.

---

Bantu is a language group

Rameses and another mummy were tested and found to be of haplogroup E1b1a.


http://www.nslc.wustl.edu/sicklecell/part3/biogeography.html

quote:

---

However, In West Africa, which is heavily dominated by E1b1a
people the prevalence of the mutant gene for sickle-cell (HbS) is 5-20%
the majority of people there do not have it.

---

quote:

---

and Tutankhamun, Akhenaten and Amenhotep were tested in 2020 and were found to be of haplogroup R1b
Not of E1b1a

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
This is somewhat remedial. So to prove that a mutation is characteristic of a particular group of people most people in that group must have it???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
Modern Egyptians have NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt

---

you cannot prove this
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
It's funny how usage of the word "black" always becomes "complicated" or "confusing" when discussing whether or not prevalent ancient civilizations were indeed black.

Let's see what the scholars over at the United Nations have to say:

"It is more than probable that the African strain, black or light, is preponderant in the ancient Egyptian..."

"General History of Africa: Ancient civilizations of Africa" by G. Mokhtar, page 15 (1991) United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa 

https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/file%20uploads%20/general_history_africa_ii.pdf


KEYWORDS: MORE THAN PROBABLE, AFRICAN STRAIN (BLACK OR LIGHT), PREPONDERANT


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
It's funny how usage of the word "black" always becomes "complicated" or "confusing" when discussing whether or not prevalent ancient civilizations were indeed black.

---

http://cyclinghighasia.blogspot.com/2011/07/tajikistan-khorog-to-karakul-via.html



"black" is not a scientific term with an agreed upon definition
that is why people in this forum may not agree on who of the above is "black".
Hence if you apply the same term to ancient Egypt, the same potential disagreement
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness

Cool. I just produced a source from the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization stating that the african strain , whether black or light, was preponderant in the ancient egyptian population.

Definition of preponderant:

-- predominant in influence, number, or importance

-- having superior weight, force, or influence

-- having greater prevalence

In other words, they were "black" africans. Not caucasians, not arabs, etc.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness

Cool. I just produced a source from the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization stating that the african strain , whether black or light, was preponderant in the ancient egyptian population.

Definition of preponderant:

-- predominant in influence, number, or importance

-- having superior weight, force, or influence

-- having greater prevalence

In other words, they were "black" africans. Not caucasians, not arabs, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] @the lioness

Did you forget the part where the author clearly says the african strain? The author is clearly saying the ancient egyptians were black africans,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness

Nowhere does it say "color is irrelevant", and africans or "black" people come in almost every shade of color, from light brown, to brown, to dark brown, to black.

That's why it says the african strain, to let you know they were africans.

In other words, they were "black" in the modern sense of the word -- they were black africans. Not caucasian, not arab, or anything else.

It also clearly says they had "black" or african physical features.

You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill when the text is very clear in what it says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness

Anyone with a brain can easily see the author is saying that the egyptians were black africans whose skin complexions ranged from light-skinned to black just like how we see in "black" people today.

There's no way you can try to twist what is being said without looking like a clown.

Native africans have black skin complexions as well as lighter skin complexions as well as anything in between.

They were black africans with the typical range of "african" skin complexions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] @the lioness

It literally says african strain. That eliminates caucasians, arabs, mixed lineages, etc., anyone who is not native african.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness

You're trying soooo hard to obfuscate the clear point that the author has made.

The source clearly says the african strain was preponderant in the ancient egyptians. They were africans. They had black skin and they also had lighter skin complexions, just like we see in so-called "black" or african people today.

Regardless, at the end of the day they were AFRICAN.....

Not caucasian, arab, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

The source clearly says the african strain was preponderant in the ancient egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah: They were africans. They had black skin and they also had lighter skin complexions, just like we see in so-called "black" or african people today.

Regardless, at the end of the day they were AFRICAN.....

Not caucasian, arab, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness

I was not trying to divert anything. Someone mentioned the ancient egyptians and their blackness so I was posting in response to that idea.

You then did what you always do and tried to misinterpret the information in the source I posted and I repeatedly had to correct you -- that's how we got to where we are now.

Great to see that you finally put that nonsense to rest.

---

this is the first image in the thread
Many members in the forum consider these to be black people who may have Ancient Egyptians ancestry

Other ES member think these people are not black people and they therefore could have no ancient Egyptian Ancestry

Still another ES member thinks these are not black people but they could have ancient Egyptians ancestry

I am aware of all these different opinions but you have not picked up on it

In my opinion it doesn't matter how somebody looks. Yo can't tell by looking who might have Ancient Egyptian ancestry. Somebody could look just like the Egyptians did but have no ancestry from them or they might look like them but have none of them as ancestors. Similarly a person might not resemble an ancient Egyptian but have some ancestry that does go back to them but mixed with other ancestry.
You cannot tell any of this by looking.
And even if you look at the DNA found in some of the mummies it varies, for instance Rameses III and his son's DNA is not the same as the Tutankhamun or Yuya
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Antalas

1. The source I posted a little earlier in the thread from UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organizarion).

2. Ancient egyptians did not look like modern egyptians -- there's no evidence to prove this. There is actually evidence that says the exact opposite.

And I never said being african prevents someone from being light-skinned. Clearly you aren't reading my comments and are just posting for the hell of it.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness

Those people look like arabs -- not africans. Nice try though.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness

Those people look like arabs -- not africans. Nice try though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@Antalas

2. Ancient egyptians did not look like modern egyptians -- there's no evidence to prove this. There is actually evidence that says the exact opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

1. The source I posted a little earlier in the thread from UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organizarion).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah: 2. Ancient egyptians did not look like modern egyptians -- there's no evidence to prove this. There is actually evidence that says the exact opposite.

And I never said being african prevents someone from being light-skinned. Clearly you aren't reading my comments and are just posting for the hell of it. [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness

I'm trying to figure out why you for some reason think any of your claims hold any water when all you do is purposely misinterpret scholastic information and construct strawman arguments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness , @antalas

This is from Cambridge University's Fitzwilliam Museum. They are currently remodeling their website so this page is no longer viewable at the present moment, but I went back using the wayback machine's archive feature and pulled up what used to be there. Enjoy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170516014818/https://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/virtualkemet/faq/


* Were the Ancient Egyptians Africans? What colour was their skin?

Yes. Egypt is in Africa and there are many cultural links to other African civilisations.

If we look at the skin colour and also facial features on representations of Egyptians, many are what we would consider today to be Black African. Skin colours on temple and wall reliefs show ranges between dark brown and black, which is typical of what we see today with regard to people of Black African descent or origin. Furthermore, Nubians, a group who are accepted universally as Black Africans are, like their neighbours from Kemet, shown on reliefs with both jet black and red-brown skin and can be distinguished as Nubians by their short wigs.

Many statues have lost their original skin colour. Sometimes colours were used by the Egyptians symbolically, so for example a statue of a god or royal person would painted gold to represent immortality.

If we leave colour aside for a moment, we can also find out a great deal from looking at the facial features shown on Egyptian statues. Here, there can be no doubt that we are dealing with people who were African. Faces were broad with high cheekbones and the jaws are typically strong. The noses are also broad and the lips are generally full and fleshy in appearance.

* Were the people in Ancient Kemet the same groups of people who live Egypt today?

No. Throughout Egypt’s history it had traded and fought with people from other countries. From around 750 BC the Nubian rulers, often called ‘The Kushites’ controlled Kemet and became its Twenty-fifth Dynasty. During this time Kemet enjoyed a renaissance, or return to earlier culture, as indicated by the promotion of the cult of the god Amun and also copies of earlier statues that were made by officials and the rulers.

Later, the population was affected by the immigration of soldiers, traders and settlers from outside cultures, which included two Persian invasions in 525 BC and 343 BC; Macedonian Greeks who ruled Kemet from 332-30 BC; Romans, who took control of Kemet in 30 BC; and the Islamic settlement in AD 642. The Persians ruled Kemet from their own country. The Greek rulers, in contrast, lived in Kemet and adopted Egyptian culture and traditions; however, the language for administration was changed to Greek. The Romans, although absent rulers, had large numbers of their army in Kemet and were keen to promote Egyptian culture, albeit their own version of it. The last hieroglyphic inscription dates to AD 394, after this time Christianity, which had been present in Egypt from the first century AD, gradually became the dominant religion. Early Islamic rulers maintained cultural links with earlier Egypt, as seen by the minaret at the Mosque of Ibn Tulun in Cairo, which is in the form of the famous lighthouse of Alexandria and which dated to the third century BC. The language was changed to Arabic at this time and the religion to Islam.

---

This is literally the first thing they wrote :

"What is an African centred approach to Egypt?" basically "what is afrocentrism ?" That's not objective. People who wrote this article were probably afro-american.

It's pretty evident that egyptians never depicted themselves as black but even made their facial features not similar to the negroid nubians :






This is how early dynastic egyptians depicted themselves do they look black to you ? :






Ancient egyptian civilization being born in Africa doesn't mean it was "black". Africa is a continent not a country where everyone is related to each other and people didn't wait arabs to settle in Africa such migrations go back to the paleolithic era.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
portuguese...

---

off topic will be deleted

[ 29. November 2021, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@antalas

I see you are in denial. Imagine accusing the scholars at Cambridge University (one of the oldest and most prestigious Universities in the world) of being "afrocentric"...

ROFL. Just ignore everything they wrote, and make silly excuses, ok? Whatever helps you sleep at night.

None of your silly memes can change any of the irrefutable scholastic facts.

And if you were honest, you would clearly be able to comprehend the reason why they say their approach to Egypt is "african centered". They are putting Egypt in it's proper context to debunk people like you.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


@Tazarah

Many Egyptians kings are depicted like this although there are a lot of different types if you look at 3,000 years of their art

If this was a modern person you could not tell by looking if they were East African or Arab
You could not tell by looking

@Antalas
there are many thousands of pieces of Egyptian art with this brown skin tone, exactly the same as millions of African Americans, stop the nonsense.
Most Africans are not close to pure black skin tone

two down
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
the only mummies sequenced were similar to levantines and modern egyptians not really sub-saharans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@antalas

I see you are in denial. Imagine accusing the scholars at Cambridge University (one of the oldest and most prestigious Universities in the world) of being "afrocentric"...

ROFL. Just ignore everything they wrote, and make silly excuses, ok? Whatever helps you sleep at night.

None of your silly memes can change any of the irrefutable scholastic facts.

And if you were honest, you would clearly be able to comprehend the reason why they say their approach to Egypt is "african centered". They are putting Egypt in it's proper context to debunk people like you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@antalas

In case you haven't noticed, you've been thorougly debunked. I have plenty of other sources to substantiate this position but you aren't even capable of dealing with the one from Cambridge University.

Your only response is that it's "afrocentric" (without any evidence) or that Cambridge is somehow "biased" in favor of black africans (LOL) and you try to dismiss all of the factual information that they present because it completely debunks your false worldview.

Modern egyptians are not the same people as the ancients.

Who should we believe? Some random psuedo scholar posting memes on ES? Or the people over at Cambridge University.

Easy decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


Modern egyptians are not the same people as the ancients.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness , @antalas

This is from Cambridge University's Fitzwilliam Museum. They are currently remodeling their website so this page is no longer viewable at the present moment, but I went back using the wayback machine's archive feature and pulled up what used to be there. Enjoy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170516014818/https://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/virtualkemet/faq/


* Were the Ancient Egyptians Africans? What colour was their skin?

Yes. Egypt is in Africa and there are many cultural links to other African civilisations.

If we look at the skin colour and also facial features on representations of Egyptians, many are what we would consider today to be Black African. Skin colours on temple and wall reliefs show ranges between dark brown and black, which is typical of what we see today with regard to people of Black African descent or origin. Furthermore, Nubians, a group who are accepted universally as Black Africans are, like their neighbours from Kemet, shown on reliefs with both jet black and red-brown skin and can be distinguished as Nubians by their short wigs.

Many statues have lost their original skin colour. Sometimes colours were used by the Egyptians symbolically, so for example a statue of a god or royal person would painted gold to represent immortality.

If we leave colour aside for a moment, we can also find out a great deal from looking at the facial features shown on Egyptian statues. Here, there can be no doubt that we are dealing with people who were African. Faces were broad with high cheekbones and the jaws are typically strong. The noses are also broad and the lips are generally full and fleshy in appearance.

* Were the people in Ancient Kemet the same groups of people who live Egypt today?

No. Throughout Egypt’s history it had traded and fought with people from other countries. From around 750 BC the Nubian rulers, often called ‘The Kushites’ controlled Kemet and became its Twenty-fifth Dynasty. During this time Kemet enjoyed a renaissance, or return to earlier culture, as indicated by the promotion of the cult of the god Amun and also copies of earlier statues that were made by officials and the rulers.

Later, the population was affected by the immigration of soldiers, traders and settlers from outside cultures, which included two Persian invasions in 525 BC and 343 BC; Macedonian Greeks who ruled Kemet from 332-30 BC; Romans, who took control of Kemet in 30 BC; and the Islamic settlement in AD 642. The Persians ruled Kemet from their own country. The Greek rulers, in contrast, lived in Kemet and adopted Egyptian culture and traditions; however, the language for administration was changed to Greek. The Romans, although absent rulers, had large numbers of their army in Kemet and were keen to promote Egyptian culture, albeit their own version of it. The last hieroglyphic inscription dates to AD 394, after this time Christianity, which had been present in Egypt from the first century AD, gradually became the dominant religion. Early Islamic rulers maintained cultural links with earlier Egypt, as seen by the minaret at the Mosque of Ibn Tulun in Cairo, which is in the form of the famous lighthouse of Alexandria and which dated to the third century BC. The language was changed to Arabic at this time and the religion to Islam.

---

This is literally the first thing they wrote :

"What is an African centred approach to Egypt?" basically "what is afrocentrism ?" That's not objective. People who wrote this article were probably afro-american.

It's pretty evident that egyptians never depicted themselves as black but even made their facial features not similar to the negroid nubians :


This is how early dynastic egyptians depicted themselves do they look black to you ? :



Ancient egyptian civilization being born in Africa doesn't mean it was "black". Africa is a continent not a country where everyone is related to each other and people didn't wait arabs to settle in Africa such migrations go back to the paleolithic era.

---

An indication of the unsettled nature of Pepi I's reign, is the duties of one "Nankhpepi", who was the supervisor of Upper Egypt, and chancellor of the king of Lower Egypt, plus the governor of the fourteenth Nome of Upper Egypt. Apparently along with the beautiful backpack, he also wore many hats.





These look like the average African Americans, Zulu, certain Nigerian groups etc in that same reddish brown skin tone and thick lips.
 

---

Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


Modern egyptians are not the same people as the ancients.

---

Some modern Egyptians might be close to ancient Egyptians
Others a mixture
and others with a wide range of appearance dark or light regardless might have no ancient Egyptian ancestry

Try and show us a quote from credible source that says no modern Egyptian could have substantial ancient Egyptian ancestry

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
off topic posts will be deleted

---

It certainly was on topic -- you claimed you "read sources more accurately" and that I "don't like it", then when I directly challenge that with photo evidence from the other week of you blatantly lying about the contents of another source I posted, you isolate one word of the response (portuguese) to make it seem as though the post was "off topic" when it was actually an impeachment of a false statement that you had just made.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

---

Trust and believe we all see the game being played here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
I hope everyone can see what @antalas and @the lioness are doing.

They are playing dumb, making excuses and pretending that I didn't just post information from a credible source (Cambridge University, one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in the world) that thoroughly debunks the false claims they are trying to push.

According to Cambridge University, one of the oldest and most prestigious Universities in the world -- the ancient Egyptians were black africans and modern Egyptians are a mixture of different populations who invaded Egypt over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

---

https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010012168

I notice when the evidence can't be disputed you ignore it
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@antalas

How does it feel to be in denial? Who should we trust? A pseudo posting memes on ES? Or the scholars over at Cambridge University.

Easy decision.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
Modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet. Stop the nonsense. They are invaders in just about all facades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
Oxford literally let a failed american rapper make a conference about ancient egyptians being black...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas:


I notice when the evidence can't be disputed you ignore it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
Modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet. Stop the nonsense. They are invaders in just about all facades.

---

false, modern Egyptians are over 40% African

stop the nonsense

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
Oxford literally let a failed american rapper make a conference about ancient egyptians being black...

---

what's his name?

---

Akala

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUtAxUQjwB4
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


Big O

look at this, there are thousands of pieces of
Egyptian art looking like this

You can't distinguish by looking certain East African types from certain Arab types or Asian Indians

So if you look at something like this portrait of Seti I, you can't tell by eye if the person was entirely African or not.
In order for you to make the arguments you try to make you do it by cherry picking,
remember we agreed you you were going to stop the nonsense Asante-Akachi?
 

---

Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@antalas

How does it feel to be in denial? Who should we trust? A pseudo posting memes on ES? Or the scholars over at Cambridge University.

Easy decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
Modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet. Stop the nonsense. They are invaders in just about all facades.

---

false, modern Egyptians are over 40% African

stop the nonsense

---

Check my thread on Egyptology section. They are invaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

Was E1b1b Brought Back Into Africa via Arab Invasion?

Is it a possibility that this African haplogroup reentered Northeast Africa as a result of this major invasion during the 7th millennium AD

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@antalas

How does it feel to be in denial? Who should we trust? A pseudo posting memes on ES? Or the scholars over at Cambridge University.

Easy decision.

---

In denial of what ? All datas are on my side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
Modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet. Stop the nonsense. They are invaders in just about all facades.

---

false, modern Egyptians are over 40% African

stop the nonsense

---

Check my thread on Egyptology section. They are invaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

Was E1b1b Brought Back Into Africa via Arab Invasion?

Is it a possibility that this African haplogroup reentered Northeast Africa as a result of this major invasion during the 7th millennium AD

---

pure silliness. I was thinking of replying over there
but I would rather see someone else make mincemeat out of you
eating popcorn now
So you are proposing that, R1b and mtDNA K are more African than E1b1b since the 18th dynasty Amarnas, Tutankhamun etc are are R1b and K ?

the invaders don't replace the population in this case. They are just became part of it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
Seeing how you routinely like to chime in on things that have not pertinence to you that is uncharacteristic, which means that you're afraid to respond before "the group huddle" lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@antalas

Who should we trust? A pseudo posting memes on ES? Or the scholars over at Cambridge University.

Easy decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


Modern egyptians are not the same people as the ancients.

---

Some modern Egyptians might be close to ancient Egyptians
Others a mixture
and others with a wide range of appearance dark or light regardless might have no ancient Egyptian ancestry

Try and show us a quote from credible source that says no modern Egyptian could have substantial ancient Egyptian ancestry

---

Modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet. Stop the nonsense. They are invaders in just about all facades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

Modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet. Stop the nonsense. They are invaders in just about all facades.

---

.
Correct. I must agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


Modern egyptians are not the same people as the ancients.

---

Some modern Egyptians might be close to ancient Egyptians
Others a mixture
and others with a wide range of appearance dark or light regardless might have no ancient Egyptian ancestry

Try and show us a quote from credible source that says no modern Egyptian could have substantial ancient Egyptian ancestry

---

Modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet. Stop the nonsense. They are invaders in just about all facades.

---

.
Correct. I must agree. Since the Assyrians first conquered the Egyptians there has been a slow replacement of ancient Egyptians by Middle Eastern and Western European peoples.

Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large number of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These people began to take over many Egyptian settlements, while other Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.

Other ancient Egyptian caused political and military conflicts that led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deerters moved into Kush. Moreover, the archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testfy to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush.

In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).

Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). These rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).

Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC and led to many Egyptians migrating back into Egypt.

By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled. Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule (Torok, 454-456). This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt.

The Kush was a multi-ethnic society. It included speakers of many languages within the empire. During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language.

As more and more Egyptians, led by Egyptian nationalists, fled to Kush as it became under foreign dominantion the Egyptians formed a large minority in the Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.

By the rise of Greeks in Egypt, the cultural ideology , like the people were changing. This is supported by the transition from Demotic writing (7th 5th Centuries BC) to Coptic (4th BC-AD 1400). The Coptic people are the best evidence for the change in the Egyptian population.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


look at this, there are thousands of pieces of
Egyptian art looking like this

---

Lioness the color literal in many of their portraits.

quote:

---

You can't distinguish by looking certain East African types from certain Arab types or Asian Indians

---

Your point? Who do the rulers look like? Looks like the Bantu's and the Nilotic Africans were the primary rulers of ancient Kemet. The East Africans like the Oromo had a presence in ancient Kemet. Most of the other contemporary East African types were nomads related to the desert lands that the Kemites regarded as the land of Seth.

Do Habesha, Somalis, modern Sudanese/Southern Egyptians, Berbers of the Oasis, Modern Moroccans, Southern Libyans, Syrians, Palestinians, Omani people practice any of this to this date?






 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Big O

^^^ nice.

X-Ray of King Tut's Skull




 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
I always found the dolichocephalic head shape the prettiest but the hyper variants reminds of Frieza or Roger the alien from America Dad.
 

---

Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
 
bu bu bu But R1b lol. Good comparison.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@Big O

^^^ nice.

X-Ray of King Tut's Skull

---