Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yeah, what does your hair do? Is it a function of it being really curly/kinky that requires that level of management? My hair is a bit wavy, but for the most part showering and then combing it while its wet settles it for the day until it gets to be longer than 2 inches.

[Big Triece]

Yeah, what does your hair do?

The main issue with kinkier hair imo is the hair line. When you're fresh out of the barber chair your hair line remains very crisp and edgy after about two or three days the crispness begins to fade and our hair line tends to lose it's shape. Here are a few examples of a fresh hair line:









Funny

Is it a function of it being really curly/kinky that requires that level of management?

Yes that's mostly it.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I'm kind of jumping into this late and this post is off the topic but I didn't feel opening a new thread was warranted as the post applies.

Isn't most of what's being debated in this thread revolve around racial theory? I mean obviously every human being on the planets ancestors originated in Africa. We started differentiating due to our respective environments losing our North East-African features, language, cultural traditions (if you can call them that from +-35k years ago) and took on those features that helped us survive more effectively in our respective environments. So we were and still are part of the same big ass happy family just looking a little different and having different cultural traditions.

Then you have the rediscovery of different human populations by each other and bam you get racial theory.

What I don't get is why is matters so much in the sense of academic debate. Why isn't it just "my evidence vs your evidence"? Why is there an injection of opinion that sways how one debates?

[Big Triece]

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.

Couldn't agree more

[Lord Zentei]

Just a quick comment, since honestly, I don't have a horse in this race:

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.

Ad hominems ahoy.

Regarding your quotes, as far as I can see from skimming this thread, no-one is claiming a sharp cut-off between upper Egypt and Nubia. OTOH, I've noticed people claiming that Egypt had a continuous spectrum of ethnicities from south to north, but mostly are in a group of their own. Commenting on the similarities between the southernmost Egyptians and the Nubians next door doesn't really refute anything. Neither have I noticed anyone claiming an invasion from the North model for the origin of the Egyptians; no-one here questions that ultimately "the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara". Of course, I haven't looked at it in detail, so it may be that someone has made comments to this effect, but from here, it looks like you're posting strawmen.

[Big Triece]

Neither have I noticed anyone claiming an invasion from the North model for the origin of the Egyptians; no-one here questions that ultimately "the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara".

Not true! Throughout this entire thread, what Broomstick and some others have been arguing is that the ancient Egyptians have been mixed with Middle Easterners or Northwest Africans (anyone who doesn't look like a black African) since Pre-Dynastic times. Broomstick for one has continued to assert this theory against all available evidence which all contradict this claim, and in response to the fact that I call her out on this bullshit assertion she has attempted to label me everything from a "black supremacist" to an "Afrocentric" (in other words that my argument is a fringe theory). Then when I asked her ignorant ass to define such labels and prove how I fit into them, she can't. The bitch knows that I'm simply telling the truth, based on the proven facts, which is something that she very apparently cannot accept. She and others childishly state that I'm out to prove that Egypt was originally "black black black" or the "blackest of the black", and the question is if that is proven to be the fucking truth then why the fuck can't they accept that? Why do they feel that they have to baselessly "lighten up" "whitewash" their appearance? That is why this statement:

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.

Is the best description of their contribution in this entire debate.

[Lord Zentei]

There is a considerable difference between saying "Egyptians were mixed with middle easterners" and "Egyptians were a result of an invasion from the North, and not at all African ethnically". It is particularly odd to reject this [EDIT: meaning, it's odd to reject the racial mixing, especially in northern Egypt], since the middle eastern population came from the same place the Egyptians, and indeed all mankind came from - namely sub-Saharan Africa. It is likewise odd to claim that the Egyptians mixed with their neighbors to the south, but not with their neighbors to the northeast and west.

[aieeegrunt]

I'm kind of jumping into this late and this post is off the topic but I didn't feel opening a new thread was warranted as the post applies.

Isn't most of what's being debated in this thread revolve around racial theory? I mean obviously every human being on the planets ancestors originated in Africa. We started differentiating due to our respective environments losing our North East-African features, language, cultural traditions (if you can call them that from +-35k years ago) and took on those features that helped us survive more effectively in our respective environments. So we were and still are part of the same big ass happy family just looking a little different and having different cultural traditions.

Then you have the rediscovery of different human populations by each other and bam you get racial theory.

What I don't get is why is matters so much in the sense of academic debate. Why isn't it just "my evidence vs your evidence"? Why is there an injection of opinion that sways how one debates?

I'm going to put the last 14 pages of embarrassing behaviour down to go old poop flinging human tribalism. I am going to hazard a guess here that Big T has self identified as a member of the Black African Tribe, and thus desperately wants to classify Ancient Egypt as Black African so he can bask in the reflected glory of same. Like it fucking matters in day to day life. Why other people are reacting so strongy to this I have no idea. Perhaps it reflects their own tribalism, perhaps they disagree with Big T's methodology and it quickly spirals, as online discussions often do, into the usual over the top poop flingingism.

Personally I'm going to say that whatever genetic markers the Ancient Egyptians may or may not have had doesn't mean fucking squat; it's their culture that determines who they were as people. Genetically I am a 100% East Prussian "von". Doesn't mean I have a predisposition towards wearing monocles and leather boots. My German grandparents may have given me a taste for sauerkraut and marzipan, but I was born and raised in Canada, so that's the majority cultural input going into who I am.

[Big Triece]

There is a considerable difference between saying "Egyptians were mixed with middle easterners" and "Egyptians were a result of an invasion from the North, and not at all African ethnically".

It all boils down to people falsely claiming Egypt's origins from outside of Africa, when that theory has been debunked for over half a century now by countless scholars.

It is particularly odd to reject this [EDIT: meaning, it's odd to reject the racial mixing, especially in northern Egypt], since the middle eastern population came from the same place the Egyptians, and indeed all mankind came from - namely sub-Saharan Africa. It is likewise odd to claim that the Egyptians mixed with their neighbors to the south, but not with their neighbors to the northeast and west.

No one denies that "race mixing" occurred in Egypt. The question is when did Egypt become a racially mixed society, and just about available evidence confirms that this did not happen until after the establishment of the civilization (meaning not in Pre-Dynastic times). Biological evidence confirms that the Egyptian populations of the earliest Dynasties were uniform, which was not the case during Late Period and modern times. Is it possible for isolated incidents where Middle Easterner wound up in parts of Northern Africa during Pre-Dynastic times, of course it is. Would the possibility of isolated incidents of Middle Easterners in Egypt, be enough to characterize the Pre-Dynastic populations of ancient Egypt as "racially mixed"? Biological evidence (even from early Lower Egypt) says no. The indigenous populations of Egypt were distinct from those the Middle East, but overlapped with more southerly African populations like those in the Sudan.

[Simon_Jester]

There is a considerable difference between saying "Egyptians were mixed with middle easterners" and "Egyptians were a result of an invasion from the North, and not at all African ethnically".

It all boils down to people falsely claiming Egypt's origins from outside of Africa, when that theory has been debunked for over half a century now by countless scholars.

The number of people who have asserted that Egypt "originated" from the Middle East or points north and east of there, in this thread, can be counted on the thumbs of no hands.

You want to find people who will say that with a straight face, go argue with the genuine idiot jackass racists on Stormfront or something. Don't go tilting at windmills in the illusion that they're giant monsters.

You want to know where I thnk Egyptian civilization originated?

Egypt. Where else? It wasn't anywhere on the map before the Egyptians came up with it. I would think that the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians probably came from many places, through the kind of Brownian motion that you get with nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers; a lot of those places would be nearby on the African continent, while some might be groups that had spent a while in what is now the Levant.

How many? Well, that would depend on a lot of variables like the climate, how easy it was to travel to Egypt from neighboring lands, and so on. Since the drying up of the Sahara would be pushing Saharans into Egypt from the west, the Nile would support travel from the south, while a wide band of desert in the Sinai made travel from the northeast difficult, I would expect that most of the ancient Egyptians would be a cross between Saharans and the peoples of the upper Nile, with some admixture of people from the Levant or even Arabia.

Were they African? They were physically located in Africa, they were the Nth cousins of people living elsewhere in Africa, but on the other hand they lived in a different milieu from much of the rest of Africa, and swiftly developed ties to the Middle Eastern people to the northwest about as strong as any ties to other nations in Africa. Does that mean they were African? Dunno, it depends what you mean by the word.

That's my view.

Now, the only reason I can see why you would have an argument with me on this matter, as opposed to having it with some big bad scary skinhead monster that only exists in your imagination, is if you have something beyond that to prove. Say, if you want to prove that any cultural and ethnic movement across the Sinai was all one-way, west to east and not east to west, because it would somehow sully the pure 'African-ness' of Egyptian civilization if anyone who lived there had been living in the Levant for umpty generations. Or if you want to prove that the Egyptian civilization isn't really a native product of Egypt because it was brought in by Nubian conquerors from the south or whatever.

I do not think you would want to prove such things. That would be silly. That would be such a perfect mirror image of the kind of bullshit you rightly criticize about people saying that the Egyptians came from the Caucasus or were a bunch of Vikings or something equally ridiculous.

So I'd hope you're smarter and more logical than that, that you don't feel a need to impose your own racial pigeonholes on an ancient civilization. Especially not a civilization of such universal renown, one that should be understood on its own terms as an achievement created literally out of mud and rocks by the people who lived there, at that crossroads between the African and Asian continents, not by some group of foreigners from the north or the south or the east or the west.

[Big Triece]

The number of people who have asserted that Egypt "originated" from the Middle East or points north and east of there, in this thread, can be counted on the thumbs of no hands.

I should have specified "partial" origins in the Middle East.

You want to know where I thnk Egyptian civilization originated?............I would expect that most of the ancient Egyptians would be a cross between Saharans and the peoples of the upper Nile, with some admixture of people from the Levant or even Arabia.

That is exactly what I'm getting at. Stating that because you all's stance is not as baseless as some Nordic desert empire theory, does not negate that the fact that you all's stance has a vice grip on a idiological theory. Not one of you all have been able to back the claim of a biological affinity of Pre-Dynastic Egyptians with any Middle Eastern population, so why are you jumping into the air to out something that you know isn't there? There is not scientific evidence to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were of anything but local Northeast African origin, so why is there an obsession on your part to inject a Middle Eastern biological component into Kemet's origins?

Were they African? They were physically located in Africa, they were the Nth cousins of people living elsewhere in Africa, but on the other hand they lived in a different milieu from much of the rest of Africa

The ancient Egyptians were a tropically adapted people, which means that the original populations came from more southerly regions that lie within the tropics. This in contrast with Middle Eastern populations, who were already adapted to the sub tropical environment which most of Egypt lies within. Now what point were you trying to make with that statement?

and swiftly developed ties to the Middle Eastern people to the northwest about as strong as any ties to other nations in Africa.

The ancient Egyptians adopted many ideas and customs from the foreign lands that they both conquered and traded with, but any Egyptologist would tell you that their culture and political structure maintained it's fundamentally African roots until the very last Dynasty. The ancient Egyptians paid homage to the their inner African origins all the way up to New Kingdoms ties, when they made various voyages back to Sub Saharan East Africa (Punt) and the Saharan regions of Chad. They did not view the Middle East in this same light.

Or if you want to prove that the Egyptian civilization isn't really a native product of Egypt because it was brought in by Nubian conquerors from the south or whatever.

The name "Egypt" isn't even a native name for the country, it's Kemet. The civilization that became Egypt was indeed the product of various local Northeast African populations whom settled on the Nile infusing one another's cultural ways of life, which is what lead to the creation of Kemet. From my prospective these comments are your attempt to subliminally place Egypt within it's own little bubble separate and distinct from inner African people, and your referring to it as "geographically" African is in a since that geography was the only thing that made the civilization "African".

America was created in what is today America, but the fundamental ideas and culture which lead to the creation of this nation came from Europe. Western Europe and particularly England are what we see as the mother of this nation, despite our ties from Samoa to Taiwan which came much later.

[Lord Zentei]

It all boils down to people falsely claiming Egypt's origins from outside of Africa, when that theory has been debunked for over half a century now by countless scholars.

Who is claiming that?

I should have specified "partial" origins in the Middle East.

I don't think you're getting what people are saying here (or at least, what I'm saying). The claim is that the Middle Eastern population and the Ancient Egyptian population were related, not that the Middle Eastern population somehow returned to Africa and originated the Egyptian civilization.

No one denies that "race mixing" occurred in Egypt. The question is when did Egypt become a racially mixed society, and just about available evidence confirms that this did not happen until after the establishment of the civilization (meaning not in Pre-Dynastic times). Biological evidence confirms that the Egyptian populations of the earliest Dynasties were uniform, which was not the case during Late Period and modern times. Is it possible for isolated incidents where Middle Easterner wound up in parts of Northern Africa during Pre-Dynastic times, of course it is. Would the possibility of isolated incidents of Middle Easterners in Egypt, be enough to characterize the Pre-Dynastic populations of ancient Egypt as "racially mixed"? Biological evidence (even from early Lower Egypt) says no. The indigenous populations of Egypt were distinct from those the Middle East, but overlapped with more southerly African populations like those in the Sudan.

Uniformity does not preclude the fact that people of the Middle East were related to the Egyptians just as the Egyptians were related to the people of Nubia. There was no hard line in the sand where people were of one ethnicity on the one side and of another, unrelated ethnicity on the other side. As has been mentioned, the people of the Middle East came through Egypt when they settled in their eventual homelands, just as all humans came through North Africa from their exodus from sub-Saharan Africa at some point.

What I'm doing is rejecting this hard "black/white" paradigm of classification that permeates American thinking. I imagine that it originated because most of the initial American settlers came from northwest Europe and the slaves were brought from West Africa which is sub-Saharan. Enter into this the "one drop rule", and racially mixed people would be classified as "black", regardless of how people in the ancient world and middle ages (or today, for that matter) living in the area between north Europe and sub-Saharan Africa would have regarded themselves and others. Fun fact: the people who would be regarded as "black" by people living further north would not necessarily regard themselves as "black", and could simultaneously refer to others as "black". In other words, it's a spectrum, not a binary variable.

[Big Triece]

Who is claiming that?

Everyone who we have been debating with are claiming (with no scientific evidence) that the ancient Egyptians have always (Pre-Dynastic) had biological ties to populations in the Middle East.

The claim is that the Middle Eastern population and the Ancient Egyptian population were related

In what ways (i.e biologically, culturally, religion)? What evidence has been presented to the back the claims this relationship? That which has been presented in this thread indicates that the ancient Egyptians during Pre and Early Dynastic times were essentially the same populations in the Sudan and Sahara, and were distinct from those in the Middle East:

"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54

or

"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)

So unless you're coming from the angle that all humans are closely related and what not, then that claim on your part is debunked.

Uniformity does not preclude the fact that people of the Middle East were related to the Egyptians just as the Egyptians were related to the people of Nubia.

Where are you getting your information from? Nubians and Egyptians (especially Upper Egyptians) are essentially biologically the same people, which comes from the fact that they are both of the same origin. A 2009 study confirms just how indistinguishable both populations were to one another. Are Nubian populations and the same as those in the Levant? That is the possible way that the ancient Egyptians could show overlapping biological affinities with BOTH populations.

There was no hard line in the sand where people were of one ethnicity on the one side and of another, unrelated ethnicity on the other side.

The study above directly states that there was not a smooth Cline of biological affinities from the Sudan to the Levant, which indicates biological distinctiveness between both regions. The ancient Egyptians exhibited affinities more southerly African populations.

[Big Triece]

FRESH OFF THE PRESS ON THE GENETIC FINDINGS AMARNA PERIOD PHARAOHS (which includes King Tut):

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

This month’s article features an analysis of several mummies, including the famous King Tut and his relatives. These individuals lived in a unique time more than three thousand years ago: the “Amarna period,” which has left a vivid archaeological record of life in pharaonic Egypt.

CONCLUSION:

Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of Africa. These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE.

Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies. If new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.

[Lord Zentei]

FRESH OFF THE PRESS ON THE GENETIC FINDINGS AMARNA PERIOD PHARAOHS (which includes King Tut):

Would you mind not shouting, please.

Everyone who we have been debating with are claiming (with no scientific evidence) that the ancient Egyptians have always (Pre-Dynastic) had biological ties to populations in the Middle East.

Who is "we"?

[In what ways (i.e biologically, culturally, religion)? What evidence has been presented to the back the claims this relationship? That which has been presented in this thread indicates that the ancient Egyptians during Pre and Early Dynastic times were essentially the same populations in the Sudan and Sahara, and were distinct from those in the Middle East:

"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54

You understand that the phrase "showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series" implies that they were not the same population as the Sudanese? BTW: S. O. Y. Keita himself has rejected the concept of "race", and warns against its use, so quoting him in a thread which is about "black" Egypt is rather inappropriate.

"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)

So unless you're coming from the angle that all humans are closely related and what not, then that claim on your part is debunked.

Once again, I'm not claiming that the Egyptians were related to Europeans. As for the Palestinians, I'm largely speaking of the relationship of all humans, but also, see next point.

Where are you getting your information from? Nubians and Egyptians (especially Upper Egyptians) are essentially biologically the same people, which comes from the fact that they are both of the same origin. A 2009 study confirms just how indistinguishable both populations were to one another. Are Nubian populations and the same as those in the Levant? That is the possible way that the ancient Egyptians could show overlapping biological affinities with BOTH populations.

Here:

"The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an early ancestral group, by drift and gene exchange with the Near East. (This however, would not negate their lineage relationship with southerners.)

**Later**, depending on "starting" orientation, the **dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972).** Making a neat north/south "racial" division in dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically unsound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These racial terms are unnecessary. The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. **The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series.

[Big Triece]

Who is "we"?

Pharaoh Mentuhotep and myself.

You understand that the phrase "showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series" implies that they were not the same population as the Sudanese?

From the same study:

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). It is also possible that the dental traits could have been introduced from an external source, and increased in frequency primarily because of natural selection, either for the trait or for a growth pattern requiring less energy. There is no evidence for sudden or gradual mass migration of Europeans or Near Easterners into the valley, as the term "replacement" would imply. There is limb ratio and craniofacial morphological and metric continuity in Upper Egypt-Nubia in a broad sense from the late paleolithic through dynastic periods.."-- S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.

BTW: S. O. Y. Keita himself has rejected the concept of "race", and warns against its use, so quoting him in a thread which is about "black" Egypt is rather inappropriate.

This is essentially a straw man argument, as I'm not using racial terminology in biological sense. I distinguish the fact that the concept of race is a social concept which is based on a person or group's external anatomical traits. The purpose me quoting these studies is to prove what the external anatomical traits of these long gone people looked like in relation to other population groups, and from there it could be determined which population those long gone people would be associated as belonging to.

Once again, I'm not claiming that the Egyptians were related to Europeans. As for the Palestinians, I'm largely speaking of the relationship of all humans, but also, see next point

Are you basically saying in response to the fact that I've proven to you that the ancient Egyptians were biologically essentially the same as populations in the Sudan, you reply back with that "we are all human" bullshit? Come on now!

"The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an early ancestral group, by drift and gene exchange with the Near East. (This however, would not negate their lineage relationship with southerners.)

**Later**, depending on "starting" orientation, the **dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972).** Making a neat north/south "racial" division in dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically unsound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These racial terms are unnecessary. The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. **The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series.

So what are you trying to prove with this statement from Keita? It is well known that Northern and Southern Egyptians were not identical populations. What he is ultimately saying is that the distinct crania of the Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians is indicative that this population diverged from Nilotic populations. Their crania is distinct in the same way that the crania of Nigerian is from a Somalian, but none the less those same Lower Egyptians were found to be tropically adapted, which was not the case for Middle Easterners of the same period:

"Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."-- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds. Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium, BCE. Leicester Univ Press: 2002, 118-28

[Lord Zentei]

From the same study:<snip>

Yes, indeed - and so, what is your point? Your quote says "The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration". Hence, the Egyptians had origins both with North Africans as well as Nubians, contrary to what you were saying earlier. The "same" population refers to both of these groups, not to Nubians alone.

So what are you trying to prove with this statement from Keita? It is well known that Northern and Southern Egyptians were not identical populations.

Concession accepted, seeing as you were claiming homogenity earlier in this thread.

Are you basically saying in response to the fact that I've proven to you that the ancient Egyptians were biologically essentially the same as populations in the Sudan, you reply back with that "we are all human" bullshit? Come on now!

No.

This is essentially a straw man argument, as I'm not using racial terminology in biological sense. I distinguish the fact that the concept of race is a social concept which is based on a person or group's external anatomical traits. The purpose me quoting these studies is to prove what the external anatomical traits of these long gone people looked like in relation to other population groups, and from there it could be determined which population those long gone people would be associated as belonging to.

Using "black" Egypt in that sense is misleading.

What he is ultimately saying is that the distinct crania of the Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians is indicative that this population diverged from Nilotic populations. Their crania is distinct in the same way that the crania of Nigerian is from a Somalian, but none the less those same Lower Egyptians were found to be tropically adapted, which was not the case for Middle Easterners of the same period:

And that divergence involved mutual gene flow with the Near East. What's your point again?

[Big Triece]

Yes, indeed - and so, what is your point? Your quote says "The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration". Hence, the Egyptians had origins both with North Africans as well as Nubians, contrary to what you were saying earlier. The "same" population refers to both of these groups, not to Nubians alone.

The Saharans in question were Nilotic Africans. Also note that you cut the quote off when it stated that Saharan, Nubians, and southern Egyptians were 'essentially biologically the same".

Concession accepted, seeing as you were claiming homogenity earlier in this thread.

The population southern Egypt where the root of Dynastic culture was relatively homogeneous compared to later Egyptian groups. Keita. The diversity seen in Nile however according to Keita represented indigenous African diversity.

Using "black" Egypt in that sense is misleading.

No it's not, it's just something that stings your tongue.

And that divergence involved mutual gene flow with the Near East. What's your point again?

Where is your source for that claim? It sure wasn't in that passage from Keita. More recent analysis (as Keita stated was needed to determine this) finds that both northern and southern Egyptian crania were indigenous to Africa. Both were also tropically adapted like other African populations further south:

More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007).

[Lord Zentei]

The Saharans in question were Nilotic Africans. Also note that you cut the quote off when it stated that Saharan, Nubians, and southern Egyptians were 'essentially biologically the same".

Please refrain from implying that I'm concealing the truth when I quoted your own passage that was already present in the thread. Not to mention that I did address their being described as being the "same".

And your quote also included the following:

It is also possible that the dental traits could have been introduced from an external source, and increased in frequency primarily because of natural selection, either for the trait or for a growth pattern requiring less energy.

Anyway, judging by the conclusion in that quote which you did see fit to underline, it seems that you're still arguing against a position regarding a European origin for the ancient Egyptians, which is a position I don't hold nor have I ever held.

The population southern Egypt where the root of Dynastic culture was relatively homogeneous compared to later Egyptian groups. Keita. The diversity seen in Nile however according to Keita represented indigenous African diversity.

So? Your earlier claim of homogenity is false.

No it's not, it's just something that stings your tongue.

Now you're just lying - and appeals to motive are not a valid argument in any case.

Where is your source for that claim? It sure wasn't in that passage from Keita. More recent analysis (as Keita stated was needed to determine this) finds that both northern and southern Egyptian crania were indigenous to Africa. Both were also tropically adapted like other African populations further south:

I have already posted the quote where that claim appears. And you're still strawmanning my position.

[Big Triece]

Please refrain from implying that I'm concealing the truth when I quoted your own passage that was already present in the thread. Not to mention that I did address their being described as being the "same".

That being said it proves that Saharan, southern Egyptians and Nubians were essentially biologically the same people. Have Sudanese populations always been "mixed" as well? Biological evidence suggest not..sorry!

And your quote also included the following:

It is also possible that the dental traits could have been introduced from an external source, and increased in frequency primarily because of natural selection, either for the trait or for a growth pattern requiring less energy.

More recent dental analysis confirms that the change in tooth size throughout the Nile Valley was due to the development of agriculture, which refutes the claim of mass influx of foreigners:

Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective.

Rose JC, Roblee RD.

Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 Jun;30(5):292-300.

The study of ancient Egyptian skeletons from Amarna, Egypt reveals extensive tooth wear but very little dental crowding, unlike in modern Americans. In the early 20th century, Percy Raymond Begg focused his research on extreme tooth wear coincident with traditional diets to justify teeth removal during orthodontic treatment. [b]Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and the Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face, including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture[/b], but without any increase in the frequency of dental crowding and malocclusion. For thousands of years, facial and dental reduction stayed in step, more or less. These analyses suggest it was not the reduction in tooth wear that increased crowding and malocclusion, but rather the tremendous reduction in the forces of mastication, which produced this extreme tooth wear and the subsequent reduced jaw involvement. Thus, as modern food preparation techniques spread throughout the world during the 19th century, so did dental crowding. This research provides support for the development of orthodontic therapies that increase jaw dimensions rather than the use of tooth removal to relieve crowding.

Hope that ends all your confusion.

So? Your earlier claim of homogenity is false.

Nope:

Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time. -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

[Lord Zentei]

That being said it proves that Saharan, southern Egyptians and Nubians were essentially biologically the same people. Have Sudanese populations always been "mixed" as well? Biological evidence suggest not..sorry!

<SNIP>

It seems that you're STILL strawmanning. Are you trolling or just that stupid?

So? Your earlier claim of homogenity is false.

Nope:

And how does that address this:

"The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an early ancestral group, by drift and gene exchange with the Near East. (This however, would not negate their lineage relationship with southerners.)

**Later**, depending on "starting" orientation, the **dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972).** Making a neat north/south "racial" division in dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically unsound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These racial terms are unnecessary. The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. **The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series.

As well as your earlier concession?

[Lord Zentei]

To preempt yet more bullshit, the point is this: you are asserting consistently that Egyptians were indigenous Africans and that they did not originate due to an influx of people from beyond Africa. I am not contesting any of that, nor have I throughout this thread.

I am disputing the claim that "African" is synonymous with "Black". Pointing out that the Egyptians were tropically adapted has nothing to do with anything, since "tropical adaption" is not synonymous with "negroid". Moreover, the human population beyond Africa are all emigrants from Africa, so merely pointing out that a group originated in Africa says nothing about their "blackness". For the record, neither am I making any claims about "whiteness". I also questioning the relevance of such labels as "black" and "white" to the ancient Egyptians. Nothing else. So just about all your points are pretty much irrelevant.

As far as I can tell, most people in this thread have held the same view, and it was pointed out to you from page 1 of this thread. Yet you keep harping on about these same points as if that meant anything.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So to clarify, the assertion in dispute is;

The people egypt/khemet originated inside Africa, but they didn't necessarily look like the traditionally accepted model of africans or african-americans.

Yes?

[Channel72]

No, it appears that Big Triece's assertion is that Pre-Dynastic Egypt, (i.e the Badarian, Naqada, etc. cultures which thrived before the unification of Upper/Lower Egypt) were almost exclusively biologically related to African peoples south of Egypt, (Nubia, etc.)

I think we can all agree that throughout the Dynastic period, Egyptian civilization interacted heavily with the Levant and the Mediterranean civilizations, so saying Ancient Egypt was a purely African phenomenon is certainly a simplification. But the only thing Big Triece appears to be arguing here is that the seeds of dynastic Egypt, i.e. the Predynastic cultures, consisted mostly of peoples biologically connected to the southward populations in Nubia, Sudan, etc.

Big Triece has cited some interesting studies, and I have no doubt that the Nubian inhabitants along the Nile contributed enormously to the formation of Dynastic Egypt. However, input from the North can't be entirely ruled out. For example, the Harifian culture which thrived in the Sinai/Negev region north of Egypt, and probably spoke a proto-Semitic language, has well-established cultural connections with the Pre-Dynastic Faiyum culture in Lower Egypt, as can be observed by similarities in pottery and tools.

So while nobody can deny the enormous influence from Nubia in the formation of ancient Egypt, it's clear that the Predynastic cultures absorbed cultural or technological knowledge from the north as well. However, Big Triece's arguments seem to be mostly concerned with biology. It's probably the case that he's right in that regard, and that the majority of inhabitants of Predynastic Egypt were more biologically related to Nubians than the northern Semitic peoples. But I don't think a culture is defined by biology alone.

[Big Triece]

And how does that address this:

The study proves that the early Dynasties of Egypt were more homogeneous compared to later Dynastic times. This is coming from the same study that states that both Lower and Upper Egyptians while being distinct from one another were indigenous, which logically means that the populations on both ends were relatively uniform in their own respect. Does it take a fucking rocket scientist to understand?