Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Akhlut]

Incidentally, most people of European descent in North America who have had family here for at least 200-300+ years have amounts of Native American, and possibly African, in them! ...snip... However, and more pertinently, even if the Ancient Egyptians were "black" (whatever that means), that has no bearing on the grand majority of black Americans descended of West African slaves because they are no more related or descended of the Ancient Egyptians than I am (because of my Greek descent, which probably means at least some Ancient Egyptian blood in me).

While I see what you are saying I would like to disagree in principle.
First "most people" etc would be the majority and I don't think that there is any research to indicate that the majority does. What is true is that there are a lot of native american/african intermixing and that it is much more than common people realise, but it doesn't stretch into the majority since the immigrants came in waves and later waves didn't have as much chance to intermix as the early waves.

Well, I included people who have had family in North America for numerous centuries, as Indian intermarriage, while not common, happened just often enough for people with long family lines in North America to eventually trace them to Native American populations and, possibly, some African populations. After all, it just takes one intermarriage with offspring reaching to the present day to have an entire branch of the family tree residing in North America for 10k+ years.

Then I think that in the cultural context of the USA and especially the south it is of great import to african americans that Ancient Egyptians were black/african. This because of the prevalent racism that still exists. By reminding the populace through black history classes and similar that africa did spawn humanity and that africa did actually have very advanced civilizations they counter hundreds of years of pure idiotic racism. This is an ongoing thing as well so it continues to be important to point out. Then that most african-americans can't trace a recent 10k years biological relation is irrelevant outside of academia. What is relevant is that it installs some sort of pride in what is an otherwise downtrodden group. Unfortunately that pride can go a bit far in some cases.

I have no problems with that, on the face of it, but there are numerous other civilizations in Africa that are more in line with conventional ideas of "blackness," such as the Zulu, the Mali, Benin, Buganda, and dozens of other major civilizations in Africa. Otherwise, we get problems with any discoveries challenging Ancient Egypt as being a stronghold of "black Africans" being called "racist revisionism" that are trying to undermine the confidence of black achievements.

[Spoonist]

Well, I included people who have had family in North America for numerous centuries, as Indian intermarriage, while not common, happened just often enough for people with long family lines in North America to eventually trace them to Native American populations and, possibly, some African populations. After all, it just takes one intermarriage with offspring reaching to the present day to have an entire branch of the family tree residing in North America for 10k+ years.

Hmm maybe I didn't factor in your caveats enough. Well the fanatiques usually kept to themselves but 200 years ago would be 1811. So that is before the mass increase in 1830+. If that was your intention then I'd completely agree with you. Wasn't a third of the non-native population in the 18th cen africans?
My stance was from the current mtDNA research done, so that changed massively after the timespan you gave.

I have no problems with that, on the face of it, but there are numerous other civilizations in Africa that are more in line with conventional ideas of "blackness," such as the Zulu, the Mali, Benin, Buganda, and dozens of other major civilizations in Africa. Otherwise, we get problems with any discoveries challenging Ancient Egypt as being a stronghold of "black Africans" being called "racist revisionism" that are trying to undermine the confidence of black achievements.

That wouldn't helpt though since the racists have poisoned the well.
Zulu, wouldn't do it since those got their ass kicked by the brits, hence racists would argue the barbarians angle. Its also a very late civ.
Mali is also too late, and is post muhammed so the muslim racists claim that heritage.
Benin, Buganda ??? huh? As examples of great african civs? Nah, no thanx.

Better with the Nok empire, but that can be traced to the proto-civ culture in the sahara. So the same seed that grew in the indo valley to become the egypt empire.

[Simon_Jester]

However I disagree with your verdict regarding bT since I consider him a moderate within his genre. As I've pointed out its more his delivery and bias that is at fault than his underlying opinions or studies. He agreed that the north-south nilo cultures had a pigment range. He agrees on the ethiopians and nubians being less pigmented than the bantu and that the proto-egyptian cultures were not of bantu origin.
All of which lots of afrocentrist americans advocate.

I see what you mean- but yes, the delivery and bias makes him look a lot worse than he would otherwise. The way he seems to be trying to bully people into agreeing with him, and using accusations of racism like a bludgeon, reflects very badly on what could otherwise be a noble effort to emphasize the strength and validity of African cultures that were ignored by Western historians and anthropology until far, far too recently.

Then I think that in the cultural context of the USA and especially the south it is of great import to african americans that Ancient Egyptians were black/african. This because of the prevalent racism that still exists. By reminding the populace through black history classes and similar that africa did spawn humanity and that africa did actually have very advanced civilizations they counter hundreds of years of pure idiotic racism. This is an ongoing thing as well so it continues to be important to point out. Then that most african-americans can't trace a recent 10k years biological relation is irrelevant outside of academia. What is relevant is that it installs some sort of pride in what is an otherwise downtrodden group. Unfortunately that pride can go a bit far in some cases.

What's problematic is that when this is done, it places the "support africa" group and its attempt to instill pride, and places it at odds with parts of the academic mainstream that is by and large not racist.

There's a large and growing number of educated people in the developed world who are perfectly willing to listen when someone talks about African civilizations. But when the advocates of those cultures start adopting a ferocious, confrontational attitude, start belittling anyone who so much as questions their narrative... they reduce themselves to the same intellectual level as conspiracy theorists, which makes it a lot harder for them to get an airing in public arenas.

[Spoonist]

What's problematic is that when this is done, it places the "support africa" group and its attempt to instill pride, and places it at odds with parts of the academic mainstream that is by and large not racist.

There's a large and growing number of educated people in the developed world who are perfectly willing to listen when someone talks about African civilizations.

Yes, of course. There is a difference between saying that proto-egypt was an indigenous african civ and saying that there was no influence from outside of africa in proto-egypt.

Even bT's more moderate approach fails in that it claims sub-saharan origin to make it fit better into a black roots ideology. Something which Keita for instance does not claim officially but sometimes misdirect to during lectures.

[Big Triece]

It's not that it matters to you, it's that it matters to Big Triece and other black supremacists

So now I am according to you a "black supremacist"? Three to four months ago when this debate was revived you stated that I was not a "raving Afrocentric", but just an "Afrocentric". When I began to put your definition of what constitutes and "Afrocentric" to heat and how I qualify as such, you shut the fuck the up about it, because you know that my position is NOT "Afrocentric". Now that time has pasted and the affects of your argument being mud stomped by myself has set in, you are now emotionally and baselessly now claiming that I'm a fucking "black supremacist"! Fucking pathetic.

who have a major psychological stake in proving that the Ancient Egyptians were "pure" Africans.

My stance is no different than that of Keita and the numerous other scholars whom have been referenced throughout this thread. The original ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, as no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere. As time went on "prolonged small scale migration" from the Middle East began to alter the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians from that which lay with more southerly Northeast African populations, to that which began to group with said Mediterranean populations. Where do I source my opinion?:

There has been scholarly interest in the biological variation and genealogical relationship of the ancient Egyptians to other populations outside of the Egyptian Nile Valley. There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa. Skeletal analyses have figured prominently in research. When comparisons to non-Egyptians are made, depending on which samples and methods are used, the craniofacial patterns of ancient Egyptian show a range of similarities to other African populations, Near Easterners, and Europeans. Overall, these studies can be interpreted as suggesting that the Egyptian Nile Valley's indigenous population had a craniofacial pattern that evolved and emerged in northeastern Africa, whose geography in relationship to climate largely explains the variation. Dental affinity studies generally agree with the craniofacial results, though they differ in the details. The body proportions of ancient Egyptians generally are similar to those of tropical (more southern) Africans.

S.O.Y. Keita

Linkto source

According to your emotionally driven and baseless rant the only reason why Keita agrees that the early ancient Egyptians were an array of "pure Africans" is because he too has "psychological issues". You know that this however is not the case, and what is proven is that my opinion on the matter has a basis in the consensus in modern academia. My opinion is based on facts whereas yours is based on your emotional attachment to a baseless preconceived notion which is ultimately rooted in anti black colonial racism (check the UNESCO conference of 1974), hence not facts. Therefore the question is what the fuck is wrong with you?

A lot of American blacks feel a need to claim Ancient Egypt entirely as their own in order to prove that blacks can be civilized

I think that the problem is that, many whites who claim to be progressive on racial issues, still blindly cling to Eurocentric notions. You all can admit that Eurocentrism has casted a fucked up shadow on how the world views black Africans, but take offense to when the common layman ideas of today (which are rooted in that train of thought) are to proven to be completely false. The idea that ancient Egypt was a mixed society did not take sway until the UNESCO conference of 1974. During this conference Senegalese African historian Cheikh Anta Diop and his assistant Obenga absolutely obliterated the attempt by most of the world's leading Egyptologist of the time to agree upon a European or Asiatic origin for ancient Egypt. When it became obvious that no one had a serious rebuttal to the "painstaking" arguments of these two African scholars, the opposition could only RETREAT into a "mixed origin" for ancient, which was even then a baseless argument. As a result Diop in most reviews was held in contempt and seen as a radical, while only relatively few of his proposals were seriously challenged.

Big Triece may or may not be officially one of those crowd, but his heavy reliance on just Keita

Keita is regarded as the fucking authority on this subject, due to simply to the sheer amount of time he has dedicated to researching the bio-cultural origins of ancient Egypt. This is why his works are the consistently built upon and why he is invited to educate students and peers at prestigious universities on this topic. This is why the National Geographic dedicated an entire page on this subject to the works and comments of Keita. None the less other bio-geneticist have been heavily referenced by myself throughout this debate and their conclusions also build upon what Keita finds.

Also indicative are his statements that Arabs are never spoken of as white people by white people (while less common these days, this does and has occurred for a long time).

No YOU broke down after your intellectual ass beating and bitched that by stating the FACTS of this subject that I was unfairly trying to exclude "whites" out of the formation of ancient Egypt. I then stated, when in the Hell have Middle Easterners been referred to as "white". I backed accusations by the Wikipedia article specifically dealing with the concept of "white", which debunked your claim of Middle Easterners being considered such.

This statement however is pretty revealing about your motives in this entire debate. You want to stretch the definition for what is perceived in society as "white" down into the Middle East and from that baselessly claim that the ancient Egyptians were a mixture of black Africans and "white Middle Easterners". You want to tie people like yourself (real white folk), with the creation of this ancient African civilization.

And a subtext, is, of course, that any white person is inherently a bigot - hence the line about "typical colonial minded", which is just code speak for "white person". That's why BT conflates any presentation of biological evidence, even the smallest of data points, that Ancient Egyptians were anything other than "pure" black with such hostility.

What scientific evidence have you presented and stuck with Broomstick? Your entire argument has been nothing more than begs and pleas for me to bend what biological evidence indicates about the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians for that of your mere speculations. I have stated that the fact some ideas from the Levant were incorporated by Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt, and as you've even stated this is not evidence of genetic input from the Levant. Yet you continued to assert that there was some sort pre-Dynastic genetic input from the Levant into the Nile Valley which distinguished those Nile Valley inhabitants from black African populations to the south. I provided numerous lines of evidence which directly refute your claims.

He's somehow conflating biological mixing of ethnic groups with out-dated, discredited notion of 19th Century mental inferiority. Little does he realize he is, in fact, perpetuating those notions of biology being destiny by doing so. I don't understand why he thinks even the tiniest admixture from somewhere else makes the Ancient Egyptians somehow less, or less African, but he does.

Pathetic! You are still baselessly asserting that the ancient Egyptians were a mixture of black Africans and non Africans against all evidence that has been presented in this thread, and you are attempting to chastise me for not bending my fact based position to satisfy your own convert political motivation.

There is also his anger that the rest of us aren't at his beck and call, that we have to remain here and jump through his hoops on his timetable because, of course, he is superior to those damned dirty apes white people.

Are you serious? Fucking pathetic is what you are!

Because.... African American barbershops are bastions of scientific research? I truly do not understand the point of dragging barbershops into this discussion.

Amnesia...fucking Amnesia is what has to be driving the bulk of your bullshit response. We were discussing social issues within the African American community (i.e colorism). You described yourself as an "outsider looking in" and I stated that as an actual African American who engages in these types of discussions at least once a week (at the barbershop) my experience is likely more accurate then that of a self described "outsider looking in".

Of course, his failure to convince others of the Truth and Rightness of his viewpoint could not possibly have anything to do with any weakness in his debating skills

As evident by yourself the denial of these facts are nothing more than wishful thinking and persistent ignorance.

I'm here to say that in MY personal experience this is actually fairly common. "Arab" is seen as just as much a subdivision of "Caucasian" or "white" as, say, Italian or German by many white people.

The term "Caucasian" was the attempt by early Western anthropologist to apply social concepts to science. It was not synonymous with "white", but merely a category that suggested biological relatedness from populations in Scandinavia to Northern Africa and even Sub Saharan East and West Africa. As you well know the people who are exclusively considered "white' are those of wholly European origins. Though as you also know many many Western Europeans and Americans even limit that definition to exclude southern and western European populations like Italians and Greeks. In fact Middle Easterners were not considered socially or politically "white" until an ordinance passed in 1915, in order for a Syrian immigrant to obtain land and voting rights. Now I don't know if that ordinance immediately granted them entrance into the Klan, but you feel the need to cling to the notion of Middle Easterners as 'white' for purposes of this debate then go right ahead.

I just don't see the evidence that Egypt is the sole source of ALL African culture as some have asserted, saying things like the Yoruban culture is a descendant of Ancient Egypt and such like.

There are two likely sources for the commonalities (genetic, linguistic and religious) seen in some West African ethnic groups (Youruba and Wolof). One being the ancient principal belief of some West African population that their common ancestor came from the Nile Valley. The other and most likely one being the common Saharan ancestry due to the desertification of the desert of both West Africans and Nile Valley. The commonality of the M2 lineage is what in my opinion most closely supports the latter.

Do YOU honestly think YOU don't have a racial bias of your own? Or do you subscribe to the bullshit notion that black people somehow can't be racial bigots?

I know that I do! However I don't argue against what has been proven to be correct and I only argue for what I have scientific backing for. You are the opposite. You allow your biases to control your argument.

[Big Triece]

double post

[CaptainChewbacca]

Jeez Big T, do you subscribe to this thread or something?

[Big Triece]

Even bT's more moderate approach fails in that it claims sub-saharan origin to make it fit better into a black roots ideology.

You are essentially saying that I'm pulling that claim out of thin air. Everything from culture, archaeological to biological affinities ties ancient Egypt's origins mainly to Sub Saharan East Africa:

Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles



The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.

Genetic evidence coincides with this migration as it also points to Sub Saharan East Africa being a major population source for ancient Egypt.



These sources are not from Keita by the way.

Something which Keita for instance does not claim officially but sometimes misdirect to during lectures.

Keita's stance is that the bio-cultural origins of ancient Egypt lies in more southerly Northeast Africa, which essentially is Sub Saharan East Africa (except for Egypt itself and Northern Sudan). Irregardless to 'perceived' political motivations, this area (along with the ancient Sahara) is simply what all lines of evidence points to as a major source for Egypt's original population.

[Spoonist]

Jeez Big T, do you subscribe to this thread or something?

So? This is the only topic he has shown any interest in on this board so why shouldn't he subscribe to it?
It's a redundant observation, especially since the topic has gone dormant several times, so its a good thing that he has.

My stance is no different than that of Keita and the numerous other scholars whom have been referenced throughout this thread. The original ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, as no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere.

Agreed on the indigenous, nope on the no evidence thingie, you can't be so certain. So there needs to be a bunch of extra caveats before your statement and Keita's position coincide. Namely that Keita acknowledges that there is no such 100% certainty. That there exists other views and that the discussion is alive and well.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/
However with that said, any such back-migration into africa is so small when compared to the total pop, so it casts no shadow on the 'indigenous' angle. But you should still acknowledge it, just like Keita does.
So do you even know what the Neolithic Subpluvial period is?
http://edepot.wur.nl/25106
Do you even grasp what that does to your position?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/ ... win-text/1
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/
Since people living north of the sahara and south of the sahara co-mingled in the sahara and then when desertification struck those moved into the nilo valley, there is no way that there is 0% genetic migration from that.

Irregardless to 'perceived' political motivations, this area (along with the ancient Sahara) is simply what all lines of evidence points to as a major source for Egypt's original population.

This I agree with, but you have stepped away from that when you claim "no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere" which is false.

I'll take the white vs caucasion thingie tomorrow.

[Big Triece]

Agreed on the indigenous, nope on the no evidence thingie, you can't be so certain.

It was not 'me' who stated that. It was a scholar who is regarded as 'the' authority on the matter of Egypt's population history who conclusively states that based on all available scientific evidence the origins of ancient Egypt's original population came from more southerly regions of Northeast Africa and no scientific evidence indicates origins from elsewhere. Again if you have issue with that fact then take it up with Keita, as I am merely citing the man's conclusions for my own opinion on the matter.

Namely that Keita acknowledges that there is no such 100% certainty. That there exists other views and that the discussion is alive and well.

Can you please cite where Keita says that there is evidence to suggest otherwise? If you've watched the National Geographic interview with Keita his final statement is that there is "no reason to believe" that the ancient Egyptians were anything but of "local Northeast African origin". Why is this fact so hard to accept for some of you?

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/
However with that said, any such back-migration into africa is so small when compared to the total pop

With that said when did the speculated "back migration" occur into Africa; which route did it reenter (Iberia or the Sinai); Did the humans who allegedly reentered Africa even have enough time to differentiate in phenotype from their much more recent tropical African ancestors at the time in question? What evidence do we have to suggest that this back migration affected Egypt in particular?

By the way here are results of the biological affinities of the oldest human remains in the Egypt:


Ricaut 2008

So according to consistent biological findings the oldest remains of found in Egypt were "Sub Saharan African" in skeletal morphology and there was apparently a diffusion of this indigenous African population into the Levant and into southern Europe during the early Mesolithic. Interestingly this seems to suggest the opposite of what you are hinting at.

so it casts no shadow on the 'indigenous' angle. But you should still acknowledge it, just like Keita does.

Anything is possible!

So do you even know what the Neolithic Subpluvial period is?

I find it somewhat insulting that you would even ask that question, as I've REPEATEDLY attributed the ancient Sahara along with the Sub Saharan East African component, as the other major population source for the origins of ancient Egypt. These ancient Saharans were NILOTIC African populations:

Later, stimulated by mid-Holocene droughts, migration from the Sahara contributed population to the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988, Kobusiewicz 1992, Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001); the predynastic of upper Egypt and later Neolithic in lower Egypt show clear Saharan affinities. A striking increase of pastoralists’ hearths are found in the Nile valley dating to between 5000-4000 BCE (Hassan 1988). Saharan Nilo-Saharan speakers may have been initial domesticators of African cattle found in the Sahara (see Ehret 2000, Wendorf et. Al. 1987). Hence there was a Saharan “Neolithic” with evidence for domesticated cattle before they appear in the Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 2001).Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246

The article from Christopher Ehret has also been posted in it's entirety throughout this thread which details the Nilotic cultural components of the origins of this civilization.

Do you even grasp what that does to your position?

You obviously don't even know who the ancient Saharans in question were. Here is a clue:

Hiernaux(1975) and Henneberg et al. (1980) note early Saharan remains to be broadly Negroid (Kieta, S. (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)"

and

"However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene Sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclical climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects. The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration (Hassan 1988). Biologically these people were essentially the same (see above and discussion; Keita 1990).-- S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.

The ancient Saharans who contributed to the populating of the initial population of the Nile Valley were indigenous tropical Africans, so what exactly does this due to my position.

Since people living north of the sahara and south of the sahara

You tried to question my knowledge of the subject, but you don't even understand that there was not such boundary as the "Sahara" at that time. It was a continuation of inhabitable land. The evidence suggest that there were people of different phenotypes coexisting in extreme Northern Africa (including Carthage). The people of the Eastern Sahel and the Chad Basin (population source of the ancient Nile Valley) were indigenous tropical Africans.

This I agree with, but you have stepped away from that when you claim "no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere" which is false.

The population source of the ancient Egypt was Sub Saharan East Africa and the Nilotic populations of the ancient Sahara. These populations according to all available evidence were indigenous tropical Africans.

I'll take the white vs caucasion thingie tomorrow.

I'm done with that. If you all want to consider Middle Easterners "white" for the sake of this debate then go right ahead.

[Spoonist]

This is because you are not good at expressing the boundaries of your opinions. It's also because you forget to include obviuos caveats into your "summaries" of the studies that you quote. In short, the same thing that I said to you on page 2-3 or so. You are not coming across as clear as you think. Your problem is your 80's style shoulders and willingness to go to la Mancha with a long stick and a donkey. This leads to you seemingly contradicting yourself as you try too hard to argue against people who in essence agree with your sources but not with you.
Which mainly boils down to you ascerting for a fact something which is still in debate/discussion in the scientific community.

It would be silly of anyone to deny that non Africans began to integrate into Egypt throughout its history, and even small scale migration prior to the New Kingdom.

The original ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, as no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere.

To someone not used to your ramblings it looks like you are calling yourself silly.
But I think that the missing context is your basic assumption that we are all a bunch of white, colonialist racist assholes. As evident by your replies to broomy and thanas et al.
This makes you essentially assume that we think that modern northern africans are "white" or deratives thereof and that we therefore have an emotional investment in seeing those "whites" being part of the formation of proto-egypt. I'm sorry to say that the only part about that that is true is that some of us are assholes. (pfehw, four that in one sentence, english really is a shitty language sometimes).
So for clarification purposes:

My opinion is that the early ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population most closely related to more southerly Northeast African populations. From the Pre-dynastic to the second intermediate period before the New Kingdom the biological evidence that I've came across shows them grouping only with African populations to the south. From the New Kingdom period onwards however major infiltration into the Nile Valley began to take place, coming from the Middle East and Europe and settling primarily in Northern Egypt. This migration has lead to a major population shift from the south to the north and signifigant geneflow from those regions into the Nile Valley, which lead to group Egyptians biologically grouping with non Africans."

The original ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, as no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere. As time went on "prolonged small scale migration" from the Middle East began to alter the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians from that which lay with more southerly Northeast African populations, to that which began to group with said Mediterranean populations. "

1)
Northeast Africa is not especially precise and since you use it a lot while mixing your sources it simply comes out wrong. For instance that beloved source of yours Wikipedia doesn't even list it as an african region:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Africa
If you would talk about northeast Africa in the geographical sense that includes lower/northern egypt and usually Libya. Do a google image search and you'll find lots of different examples. This ambivalence is probably intentional on Keita's part to add another level of caveat. But when you repeat it with your own interpretation it just fails.
So to someone who does not share your specific definition of "northeast Africa" would say that you contradict yourself. But me I think that you believe that "northeast Africa" would exclude the northern coast of Africa somehow, because we know there is genetic drift here during the Holocene wet period. Something which spread into the green Sahara.
2)
Indigenous, what does it mean for you? For instance, do you consider Berbers to be indigenous africans? Their main Haplogroup is E which is thought to have originated in east Africa after all. Would you consider any of Haplogroup R, Haplogroup HV, Haplogroup H or Haplogroup H1 as indigenous African? Would you consider any of mtDNA U, mtDNA U6, mtDNA U6a, or U6a1 as indigenous African?
3)
Original ancient Egyptians, early ancient Egyptians etc. This is not that clear either. Which time scales are we talking about? Which geographical areas do we cover? Etc.
For instance if you listen to Keita, proto-egypt got its stuff from the Sahara, consistent with my earlier references.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geope ... ient_Egypt
By S. O. Y. Keita "Between 10,000 and 6,000 B.C. archaeological evidence has been interpreted to suggest that the number of people living along the Nile fell. At the same time, in the desert west of the river there is evidence of an increase in population and of pastoral societies that built large stone megaliths and sculptures, developed astronomical knowledge, made the earliest known pottery in Africa, and, likely, domesticated cattle. There are rock paintings of people and animals, sometimes using themes that also appear later in Egypt, along with other aspects of the culture. After the climate again grew more arid after 6000 B.C. there is evidence for migration back into the Nile Valley."
So are those Saharans part of those original ancient Egyptians, early ancient Egyptians etc?

Regarding crania in your last post to me, check this out:
http://www.cas.gsu.edu/anthropology/doc ... A_2007.pdf
That's an 'ouch' if you missed that. Now do you agree with their analysis of Fordisc 2.0 or not? If you don't, then could you please explain why.

I'll take the white vs caucasion thingie tomorrow.

I'm done with that. If you all want to consider Middle Easterners "white" for the sake of this debate then go right ahead.

Hell no, I think 'white' is a stupid category. I just asked you for consistency since you persisted in using the eqaully stupid 'black' category, as defined from a US perspective.
You again proved your worth in that you want us to use your specific definitions only when it fits your purpose but when we express a wish to move to more scientifically reliable definitions you quote wikipedia as a source...

[Big Triece]

This is because you are not good at expressing the boundaries of your opinions.

My opinion on the subject is not complex in any way shape or form. It is one that is supported by a plethora of 'clear' irrefutable evidence, and it also just so happens to be something that many of you apparently have a hard time accepting, which is why you all chose to obfuscate it.

Which mainly boils down to you ascerting for a fact something which is still in debate/discussion in the scientific community.

OOA is still up for debate, none the less you can count on fingers how many scholars actually oppose it. Likewise the criteria which answers this question may very well have a few stragglers who cling to minority ideas (i.e "non African" origins of Afro-Asiatic: origins of haplogroup E), but the overwhelming majority of the criteria used as primary support for one position or another are all pointing in a parallel direction to ancient Egypt's origins coming from more southerly Northeast African populations.

It would be silly of anyone to deny that non Africans began to integrate into Egypt throughout its history, and even small scale migration prior to the New Kingdom.

and

The original ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, as no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere.

To someone not used to your ramblings it looks like you are calling yourself silly.

How in the Hell is that calling myself "silly"? Where in the Hell is the contradiction? Are you calling me "silly" because I'm not bending position to accommodate your unsupported opinion? Are you also calling Keita silly, because I base my opinion on his research and conclusions (as well as the works of other scholars, who in turn heavily rely on his research to base their conclusions).

But I think that the missing context is your basic assumption that we are all a bunch of white, colonialist racist assholes.

No, I think that you all are bunch of folk who are for whatever reason (which most certainly could be racism) are performing mental gymnastics to avoid conceding to the fact that the original ancient Egyptians were a mixture of indigenous, tropically adapted Northeast Africans (black) and that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that they had origins from anywhere else.

This makes you essentially assume that we think that modern northern africans are "white" or deratives thereof and that we therefore have an emotional investment in seeing those "whites" being part of the formation of proto-egypt.

Well at first Broomstick was arguing for a Middle Eastern genetic input in Pre-Dynastic Egypt (that didn't go her way), so now the external (non African) genetic influence of some Northern African populations are new plea for creme in that coffee. Yep that's about it!

1) Northeast Africa is not especially precise and since you use it a lot while mixing your sources it simply comes out wrong. For instance that beloved source of yours Wikipedia doesn't even list it as an african region: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Africa

So, since I've exposed the blatantly bullshit assertion that that Middle Easterners are viewed as "white" in Western society through the "white people" Wikipedia article you have now labeled it as my "beloved source"? More silly shit!

And also Wikipedia does have a Northeast African article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Africa

If you would talk about northeast Africa in the geographical sense that includes lower/northern egypt and usually Libya.

Yes you are right it does include all of Egypt, but I have rarely (to never) seen Libya included in that definition, so if you would please source your assertions that it is "usually" included in the definition then it would greatly help your argument.

Do a google image search and you'll find lots of different examples. This ambivalence is probably intentional on Keita's part to add another level of caveat. But when you repeat it with your own interpretation it just fails.

The general definition of Northeast Africa is Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt. Some definitions include parts of Kenya and Chad. In Keita's case it's likely that his definition (aside from those core areas) includes parts Chad (and probably southern Libya), as many archaeological and linguistic ties from that area are linked to Egypt's origins (the Saharan origins).

So to someone who does not share your specific definition of "northeast Africa" would say that you contradict yourself.

You are seriously looking for ANYTHING to avoid conceding to the obviously, is it really that serious?

2) Indigenous, what does it mean for you?

Indigenous means that a population originated within a particular geographical confine, which is in this case is Africa.

For instance, do you consider Berbers to be indigenous africans?

Berber is a language and cultural way of life which originated in Africa. The population base of the original Berber population is Haplogroup E which originated in Sub Saharan East Africa. The Berber population has biological origin in the continent, which has been influenced by many many preceding migrations and events from all directions. Therefore yes they are indigenous to Africa.

Would you consider any of Haplogroup R, Haplogroup HV, Haplogroup H or Haplogroup H1 as indigenous African?

Work still needs to be done on the origins of Haplogroup R as more and more questions are arising as more and more inner African populations are being found with very high frequencies the marker. Haplogroup H on the other hand is European and origins and it's presence in (primarily in Northwest Africans) is a result of the numerous migratory event from the adjacent Europe.

Would you consider any of mtDNA U, mtDNA U6, mtDNA U6a, or U6a1 as indigenous African?

U6 is also a toss up. Keita himself often criticizes that many geneticist labels it as a Eurasian marker, when it is said to have arose during a time before humans are known to have migrated outside of the continent. He actually has a video on Youtube in which he discusses this. None the less U6 is absent in Egyptian Berber populations:

"The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated.. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."-- Coudray et al. (2008). The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations. Annals of Human Genetics. Volume 73 Issue 2, Pages 196 - 214

3)Original ancient Egyptians, early ancient Egyptians etc. This is not that clear either. Which time scales are we talking about? Which geographical areas do we cover? Etc.

Egyptians of the Pre-Dynastic period directly linked to the development of Dynastic culture, those being the Badarians. The Egyptians of Northern Egypt during this time are also taken into consideration in this analysis and also share the same tropical African biological and Nilotic cultural affinities.

So are those Saharans part of those original ancient Egyptians, early ancient Egyptians etc?

I have maintained throughout this entire debate that the Nilotic populations of the ancient Sahara combined with the existing population on the Nile from Sub Saharan East Africa are what all available evidence points to as the creators of both ancient Egypt and Nubia.

That's an 'ouch' if you missed that. Now do you agree with their analysis of Fordisc 2.0 or not? If you don't, then could you please explain why.

Here are the criticism of Fordisc by a team of investigators:

"If Fordisc 2.0 is revealing genetic admixture of Late Period Dynastic Egypt and Meroitic Nubia, then one must also consider these ancient Meroitic Nubians to be part of Hungarian, part Easter Islander, part Norse, and part Australian Aborigine... In fact, all human groups are essentially heterogeneous, including samples within Fordisc 2.0. Howells’s cranial samples exhibit far more variation within than between skeletal series...” (Williams et al, 2005, "Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania).. The results of the analyses suggest that Fordisc's utility in research and medico-legal contexts is limited. Fordisc will only return a correct ancestry attribution when an unidentified specimen is more or less complete, and belongs to one of the populations represented in the program's reference samples. Even then Fordisc can be expected to classify no more than 1 per cent of specimens with confidence."
-- Frank L'Engle, Williams, Robert L. Belcher, and George J. Armelagos. Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions About Human Variation. Current Anthropology, Volume 46, Number 2, April 2005

Though Keita seemingly supports the findings of the computer program because of the cranial variability of certain Northeast African populations which is representation of OOA:

"What would account for this range of resemblances- infraspecific convergence, parallelism, admixture, chance or all of these? It is perhaps best to consider these findings as reflective primarily of an indigenous northeast African biological evolutionary history and diversity. Hiernaux (1975) reports that the range of values in selected metric units from populations in the northeast quadrant of Africa collectively largely overlaps the range found in the world. Given that this region may be the place from which modern humans left Africa, its people may have retained an overall more generalized craniometric pattern whose individual variants for selected variables may resemble a range of centroid values for non-African population values."-- S.O.Y. Keita, "On Meriotic Nubian Crania Fordisc 2.0, and Human Biological History."Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007

Please just give it up! You are searching through every crack and corner for some disputing information, but you are consistently coming up short. The original ancient Egyptians were the product of "black black black" "pure Africans" (as sarcastically put by some members) as all available mainstream evidence points to. If however for (whatever reason) you'd rather claw your eyes out than refer these ancient tropically adapted Africans as "black" then just refer to them as indigenous Northeast Africans as Keita does. Just accept it!

I just asked you for consistency since you persisted in using the eqaully stupid 'black' category, as defined from a US perspective.

If you wanna believe that bullshit that you're saying then go right ahead.

[Big Triece]

Here are the Manchester lectures of egyptologist and sociologist Sally Ann Ashton who goes over the social aspect of this debate. She cites the Manchester lecture of S.O.Y. Keita when she concludes that the Egyptian exhibit at Manchester should the fact that they would be viewed as black Africans in a modern social context.





The funniest part of the both lectures is around the 9 minute mark in the first segment when she is reading out hate mail that some Westerners sent her after the airing of a Discovery Channel documentary. One of which insisted that every scholar agrees that the ancient Egyptians were white European Caucasians which immediately generated laughter from the Manchester grads in the audience. In the second part she also points to a cultural connection between West Africa and Egypt.

[Vehrec]

Bt, I would like to claim Indigenous African status under your definition, since I'm a human being and therefore my population originated in Africa...at some point. Or does approximately 30k years away from home exclude me from the general humans of African descent clade that you seem to have defined?

[Big Triece]

Bt, I would like to claim Indigenous African status under your definition, since I'm a human being and therefore my population originated in Africa...at some point. Or does approximately 30k years away from home exclude me from the general humans of African descent clade that you seem to have defined?

Did your particular group of people originate and localize within Africa? If they did not then they (and consequently you) are not indigenous to the continent.

[Broomstick]

Last I heard, Vehrec is a human being so the answer to that would be "yes".

[Broomstick]

So now I am according to you a "black supremacist"?

I don't know - are you?

Now that time has pasted and the affects of your argument being mud stomped by myself has set in, you are now emotionally and baselessly now claiming that I'm a fucking "black supremacist"! Fucking pathetic.

There is something called "an insult". You have been the target of one. I'm rather surprised I have to explain this to you. Are you stupid as well?

Also, learn to fucking spell. You're embarrassing the rest of us Americans in front of the North Americans, Europeans, Asians, and Africans who learned English as a second language and are STILL more eloquent than you.

who have a major psychological stake in proving that the Ancient Egyptians were "pure" Africans.

My stance is no different than that of Keita and the numerous other scholars whom have been referenced throughout this thread.

Except that when Keita is confronted with someone who disagrees with him he responds as a gentleman whereas you stomp your feet like a toddler and scream "BIGOT!" Along with other various words.

Therefore the question is what the fuck is wrong with you?

Nothing - unless, of course, you believe that white people are devils, inherently inferior, and to be cut out of as many family trees as possible. In other words, I'm calling you a racist pig.

Also indicative are his statements that Arabs are never spoken of as white people by white people (while less common these days, this does and has occurred for a long time).

No YOU broke down after your intellectual ass beating and bitched that by stating the FACTS of this subject that I was unfairly trying to exclude "whites" out of the formation of ancient Egypt. I then stated, when in the Hell have Middle Easterners been referred to as "white". I backed accusations by the Wikipedia article specifically dealing with the concept of "white", which debunked your claim of Middle Easterners being considered such.

I've had an "intellectual ass beating" only in your own little mind. Screaming FACTS!!!! and repeating yourself does not constitute an effective debate on your part.

As I said - you are hell bent on excluding "white" from as much of humanity as possible. What is that other than racial bigotry? Why do you react so violently (on a verbal level - one hopes you do not resort to fisticuffs over this in real life) to the notion that in fact many white people see people from the Middle East as part of a larger division of humanity that includes both groups? You don't even present your precious genetic evidence to support your argument here, you just start screaming and howling.

You are still baselessly asserting that the ancient Egyptians were a mixture of black Africans and non Africans

Here's the difference between YOUR argument and mine: I don't qualify "African" with "black". I don't use a paper bag test to authenticate whether or not a group is "African enough" to qualify as African.

Because.... African American barbershops are bastions of scientific research? I truly do not understand the point of dragging barbershops into this discussion.

Amnesia...fucking Amnesia is what has to be driving the bulk of your bullshit response. We were discussing social issues within the African American community (i.e colorism). You described yourself as an "outsider looking in" and I stated that as an actual African American who engages in these types of discussions at least once a week (at the barbershop) my experience is likely more accurate then that of a self described "outsider looking in".

Right. Because barber shops are the whole of African American experience.

So... someone who doesn't go to these "African American barbershops" isn't black enough?

I'm here to say that in MY personal experience this is actually fairly common. "Arab" is seen as just as much a subdivision of "Caucasian" or "white" as, say, Italian or German by many white people.

The term "Caucasian" was the attempt by early Western anthropologist to apply social concepts to science. It was not synonymous with "white", but merely a category that suggested biological relatedness from populations in Scandinavia to Northern Africa and even Sub Saharan East and West Africa.

So... you have an objection to Euro-descent people identifying with a larger group that includes both "white" and "brown" people? Why is that offensive to you?

I can understand being offended at some of the uses of that term in the past, but you seem to be reacting against the very notion of including Euro-people with a wider group of humanity.

As you well know the people who are exclusively considered "white' are those of wholly European origins.

Well, sir, by that definition I am not white, I'm Asian. My origins are not "wholly European". So please, immediately stop calling me a "typical colonial" or "white" or "European" or whatever the hell you thought I was.

Though as you also know many many Western Europeans and Americans even limit that definition to exclude southern and western European populations like Italians and Greeks. In fact Middle Easterners were not considered socially or politically "white" until an ordinance passed in 1915, in order for a Syrian immigrant to obtain land and voting rights. Now I don't know if that ordinance immediately granted them entrance into the Klan, but you feel the need to cling to the notion of Middle Easterners as 'white' for purposes of this debate then go right ahead.

It's not my need, it is a social fact - many white people view Middle Eastern folks like Arabs and Persians as also white. Perhaps, as such an outsider to white culture, you are ignorant of that fact. And I don't see why you get so torn up about the notion, either.

I am also rather insulted by your insinuation that be considered "white' is also an automatic membership in the KKK - then again, it's already obvious that you're a racist pig so maybe it's not surprising, just sad. You're making assumptions and judging people according to the color of their skin. I had so hoped we were moving past that but people like you make me want to vomit.

Let me just add that most people of Euro-descent in the US actually DO consider Italians and Greeks to be white these days. The notion they aren't is generally found only among the worst bigots (including some who aren't white, such as yourself) and the elder generation now rapidly dying off.

I just don't see the evidence that Egypt is the sole source of ALL African culture as some have asserted, saying things like the Yoruban culture is a descendant of Ancient Egypt and such like.

There are two likely sources for the commonalities (genetic, linguistic and religious) seen in some West African ethnic groups (Youruba and Wolof). One being the ancient principal belief of some West African population that their common ancestor came from the Nile Valley. The other and most likely one being the common Saharan ancestry due to the desertification of the desert of both West Africans and Nile Valley. The commonality of the M2 lineage is what in my opinion most closely supports the latter.

So.... you're saying the Yorubans couldn't come up with their culture on their own?

Isn't that much the same argument used to say that Ancient Egyptian culture couldn't have been indigenous in the 19th Century? The notion they weren't able to come up with civilization on their own?

Why do you consider the Yoruban so much less capable than the Egyptians?

Having something arise multiple times across the world is hardly unknown - agriculture arose in several localities, for instance, it didn't have just one origin. Writing has at least three points of origin - the Middle East/Nile Valley, China, and the Americas. Just because there is some similarities between two cultures does not automatically mean everything in their cultures has a common origin.

Do YOU honestly think YOU don't have a racial bias of your own? Or do you subscribe to the bullshit notion that black people somehow can't be racial bigots?

I know that I do!

Ah, so you admit you're a racist? Thank you, you have proven my argument.

However I don't argue against what has been proven to be correct and I only argue for what I have scientific backing for.

Please provide the scientific backing for your claim that white people/Americans of European descent do not view anyone from the Middle East as also being Caucasian. Please provide scientific evidence of your claim that only people of "wholly European" origins are seen as white in the US.

And for god's sake, learning how to fucking spell your native tongue.

[Korto]

It would be silly of anyone to deny that non Africans began to integrate into Egypt throughout its history, and even small scale migration prior to the New Kingdom.

The original ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, as no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere.

To someone not used to your ramblings it looks like you are calling yourself silly.

Yeah, as an outside observer my hand's up here, bT. Those two statements together sound like you're saying that there was an infusion of other people from outside into Egypt, on a small scale, but there was no genetic input from that, like, they never had kids or anything. What, they were all sexually abstinent?

Is what you mean (and I ask merely for clarification as an outsider to this thread), that the Egyption culture came from a "black" part of Africa, and despite minor input from all parts of the compass, stayed a black culture through time? I have no problem with that. It seems similar to how the (current Australian civilisation) was started by the white European British, and despite continual input from all over since then has stayed mainly white British in nature.

I'm wondering if you have been led into accidentally arguing against yourself. Hey, I see how that can happen over 13 bloody pages.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Forgive me for asking, but what are you having done to your hair which requires a weekly trip to the barber shop? I get my hair cut once every 4 months.

[Akhlut]

Forgive me for asking, but what are you having done to your hair which requires a weekly trip to the barber shop? I get my hair cut once every 4 months.

Some people go to black barbershops just to shoot the shit rather than get a haircut. Some function as social clubs in addition to the styling of hair.

[Broomstick]

Forgive me for asking, but what are you having done to your hair which requires a weekly trip to the barber shop? I get my hair cut once every 4 months.

They are social centers in some neighborhoods. A man might go down there to shoot the breeze whether he needs a hair cut or not.

[Big Triece]

Also, learn to fucking spell. You're embarrassing the rest of us Americans in front of the North Americans, Europeans, Asians, and Africans who learned English as a second language and are STILL more eloquent than you.

Funny! This coming from the same person who after 10 pages of discussion was blindly arguing a position because she thought that Egypt lied on the fucking equator. Talk about a dumb fuck...#you

So.... you're saying the Yorubans couldn't come up with their culture on their own?

Isn't that much the same argument used to say that Ancient Egyptian culture couldn't have been indigenous in the 19th Century? The notion they weren't able to come up with civilization on their own?

What I am saying is that the genetic, cultural religious and linguistic commonalities between some West African and Nile Valley populations is most likely the result of their shared Saharan ancestry, rather than an exodus from Egypt into West Africa. A map showing their common ancestry from the Sahara is detailed by the migration patterns from the region during desertification at the end of this snippet by Basil Davidson:

Why do you consider the Yoruban so much less capable than the Egyptians?

You are so full shit!

The rest of your post is full nothing more than irrelevant post filling bullshit, revolving around Middle Easterners being considered "white". I'll post the link to this article to shut the fuck up about it:

http://adiamondinsunlight.wordpress.com ... hierarchy/

[Big Triece]

Forgive me for asking, but what are you having done to your hair which requires a weekly trip to the barber shop? I get my hair cut once every 4 months.

Black people like myself tend to go the barbershop once every one to two weeks. It might not necessarily be a hair cut but rather a shape up and facial hair trim up. I noticed this cultural/physical difference between whites and blacks when I was leaving the gym with a white friend three weeks ago and he was telling he how his last haircut was three months ago and how it's about time for a new one. I always knew that most white people didn't frequent the barbershop as often as most blacks, but to see that his hair was not in that bad of shape after a three month waiting period sort of threw me off. I could not bear not getting at least a shape up after a one and a half week period (though I have waited a tad bit longer in the past). When I told him how much I went to the barbershop he in turn was shocked and inquired about the expense of those frequent trips.

[Big Triece]

Yeah, as an outside observer my hand's up here, bT. Those two statements together sound like you're saying that there was an infusion of other people from outside into Egypt, on a small scale, but there was no genetic input from that, like, they never had kids or anything. What, they were all sexually abstinent?

The infusion of people that I was referring to was the very well noted small scale migration from the Middle East that occurred after the establishment of Pharonic Egypt. As a result of that small scale migration there was genetic input on a small scale. Keita actually stated in my study that this small scale migration first bypassed Lower Egypt and went directly to Upper Egypt where the great bulk of the civilization was during early Pharonic times, which he seems to suggest caused minor biological alterations.

Is what you mean (and I ask merely for clarification as an outsider to this thread), that the Egyption culture came from a "black" part of Africa, and despite minor input from all parts of the compass, stayed a black culture through time?

Yes, pretty much

[Democracy Fanboy]

I concur with BigTriece and PharaohMentuhotep that the majority of the ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned, tropically adapted African people who were related to other Africans, particularly Northeast Africans whom most Americans do call "black", but frankly traditional color labels such as "black" and "white" are really ideal. To begin with, no one in the world is literally either color; we're all shades of pink or brown. Furthermore, even if we were to apply these labels to the lightest and darkest extremes of the human skin color spectrum, we still have to account for the billions of people who are neither extremely light or extremely dark. Calling only the fairest Europeans "white" implies that relatively tan Europeans like Greeks and Spaniards should be ethnically disconnected from other Europeans, just as calling only really dark Africans "black" implies a similar disconnect between those Africans and chocolate-brown people like the ancient Egyptians and Kalahari Bushmen. It would be better to say that Egyptians were indigenous Africans rather try to pigeonhole them into any of our horribly inaccurate, pre-scientific racial categories.

That said, I have the feeling that most of the people arguing against Big Triece and PharaohMentuhotep here are doing so out of a belief that any connection between ancient Egypt and tropical Africa is not "mainstream". Sorry to burst your bubbles, but the so-called "Afrocentric" position on ancient Egypt is gaining currency among mainstream scholars. I visited Chicago's Field Museum recently, and although they never got into race their ancient Egypt exhibit made a point of Egypt's position in Africa and its Saharan and even sub-Saharan ties. We also have the official website of Britain's Fitzwilliam Museum (which works with the University of Cambridge) devoting whole pages such as this to Egypt's African heritage. We have Nancy C. Lovell, in the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, saying this:

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.

Hell, even Mary Lefkowitz, who disapproves of Afrocentrism with a passion, says this much in her Not Out of Africa:

Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.

Of course the old paradigm hasn't completely died out, but the trends don't bode well for those who like the posters on this board want to sever Egypt from more southerly Africa. You people aren't nearly as much in sync with your precious "mainstream science" as you want to believe. What does that make you? A bunch of arrogant armchair historians viciously fighting in defense of an obsolete paradigm.