Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Big Triece]

In case it escaped you, if there was population mixing in pre-dynastic times, such effects would apply to the ancient Egyptians too

That was entire point of me posting the Ricaut study findings, it negates your postulation that a pre-historic back migration introduced non African biological affinities into the Nile Valley during those times, which persisted into the Pre-Dynastic period. Your entire fucking transcript will pulled if you try to deny that you attempted to argue this.

OTOH, when you prattle about African migrations into Europe, speak of "sub-Saharan affinities" in pre-historic European populations and get called on that, you replied that you were talking about the Mesolithic, not the Ancient Greeks.

I "prattle"? Well if you really want to get into that debate, then there are recent studies confirming Gene flow from populations with "Sub Saharan African" biological affinities into ancient Greek during it's conception:

"HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans."
European Journal Medical Genetics. 2006 Jan-Feb;49(1):43-56.
A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa l ed A, Boukef K.

"South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara."

Ooops I guess you done stepped in some shit. I back my assertions with evidence, what are you going to do call me and the scholars I cite for this fact (I have numerous) "Afrocentrics"

Ah, so you ARE saying that the inhabitants of ancient Greece were sub-Saharan, a.k.a. "black".

There is clear evidence of "Sub Saharan African" (and Middle Eastern) geneflow into ancient Greece, but I don't consider that is enough evidence to characterize that civilization "black". If anything it proves that THEY were the ones who were mixed.

[Lord Zentei]

Ah, so merely having sub-Saharan affinities does not make a population black. Glad we sorted that out.

And whoops. Your claims are hilarious.

[Big Triece]

Ah, so merely having sub-Saharan affinities does not make a population black

No you dumb fuck, the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians lie entirely with more southerly African populations. The Greeks on the other hand exhibit a more intermediate affinity between African and other European populations. The ancestral population which grounds them in Europe are the Dorians, but that is not the sole affinity of those ancient southern Europeans as exhibitted earlier

Glad we sorted that out.

You are so fucking pathetic it's almost sad. You have gotten your ass busted on every single talking point that you have attempted to present, and yet you still want to persist with your obvious racially biased denial of what the clear evidence indicates. By the way you never addressed the conclusions of the encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt:

Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid). Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize, however that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

and

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

Once again link

And whoops. Your claims are hilarious.

Typical scared Eurocentric defense website. Notice that no where on the web page is the study that I presented addressed. Also after reading most of the "rebuttals" to the numerous studies findings genetic similarity towards ancient Greeks and black Africans, lack any sort scholarly backing (in the form of quotes) and are dependent on nothing more than the some lay man interpretation of what he perceives as inconsistencies.

He interestingly enough does not address one of the most common facts supporting African migration into Southern Europe, which is sickle Cell:



Which King Tut died of by the way:

link

I guess the DNAtribes results showing close genetic affinities amongst Western Africans for the Amarna period pharaohs (which includes King Tut) was not too far off.

[Lord Zentei]

Ah, so merely having sub-Saharan affinities does not make a population black

No you dumb fuck, the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians lie entirely with more southerly African populations. The Greeks on the other hand exhibit a more intermediate affinity between African and other European populations. The ancestral population which grounds them in Europe are the Dorians, but that is not the sole affinity of those ancient southern Europeans as exhibitted earlier

Is that so? You brush off the page I linked to regarding the rebuttal.

Glad we sorted that out.

You are so fucking pathetic it's almost sad. You have gotten your ass busted on every single talking point that you have attempted to present, and yet you still want to persist with your obvious racially biased denial of what the clear evidence indicates. By the way you never addressed the conclusions of the encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt:

Yeah, because you provided a link to a review page, not the actual encyclopedia.

But google-fu FTW:

In contrast, reliable interpretations of the biological affinities of the people of lower Egypt are currently hampered by a lack of well preserved skeletal material, largely due to agricultural and settlement encroachment on archaeological sites as well as the high water table, which interferes with excavation and preservation of archaic and earlier levels. Examinations of the biological relatedness of skeletal populations of Lower Egypt to those of other areas are needed, however, because they should determine whether the archaeological evidence for Egyptian contacy with Syro-Palestine during the late Predynastic/Early Dynastic can be ascribed to trade relations or actual population movements. The archaeological and inscriptional evidence for contact suggests that gene flow between these areas was very likely. The biological affinity between peoples of Upper Egypt and the Sinai is also an important research question since archaeological evidence suggests a connection, presumably via the Red Sea. Migration into the Nile Valley from the Eastern Desert is also a subject for examination.

LMAO.

What was that we were saying about Egypt again? Oh, yes, that there was a genetic gradient going up the Nile valley. Once again, a source you claim supports you does not in fact do so. As for the more southerly areas: linka.

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

You have already posted that, and I have already responded to it.

And whoops. Your claims are hilarious.

Typical scared Eurocentric defense website. Notice that no where on the web page is the study that I presented addressed. Also after reading most of the "rebuttals" to the numerous studies findings genetic similarity towards ancient Greeks and black Africans, lack any sort scholarly backing (in the form of quotes) and are dependent on nothing more than the some lay man interpretation of what he perceives as inconsistencies. Look at his/her attempted rebuttal at this 2002 study:

Ah, so you dismiss a website as being "Eurocentric" and then post links to another one which is overtly Afrocentric. That's just amazing.

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... nities.jpg

"Certain genetic markers". And that image groups Italians with the Egyptians. Way to go.

His rebuttal is not centered around inconsistencies found in this study, but those he/she finds in older studies by the same author.

And you neglect to respond to those rebuttals.

I guess the DNAtribes results showing close genetic affinities amongst Western Africans for the Amarna period pharaohs (which includes King Tut) was not too far off.

So you're no longer denying that you're making that claim.

[Big Triece]

Is that so? You brush off the page I linked to regarding the rebuttal.

What have you "Rebutted"? The fact that the ancient Greeks were grounded into Europe biologically by the Dorians? Or are you claiming that the website link to a list of layman rebuttals to a shitload of studies from different authors is legit?

Yeah, because you provided a link to a review page, not the actual encyclopedia.

You dumb bitch the pages where the text can be viewed are available in that google preview, yet you keep bitching out of replying to the fact that the encyclopedia clearly states that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans.

But google-fu FTW:

In contrast, reliable interpretations of the biological affinities of the people of lower Egypt are currently hampered by a lack of well preserved skeletal material, largely due to agricultural and settlement encroachment on archaeological sites as well as the high water table, which interferes with excavation and preservation of archaic and earlier levels. Examinations of the biological relatedness of skeletal populations of Lower Egypt to those of other areas are needed, however, because they should determine whether the archaeological evidence for Egyptian contacy with Syro-Palestine during the late Predynastic/Early Dynastic can be ascribed to trade relations or actual population movements. The archaeological and inscriptional evidence for contact suggests that gene flow between these areas was very likely. The biological affinity between peoples of Upper Egypt and the Sinai is also an important research question since archaeological evidence suggests a connection, presumably via the Red Sea. Migration into the Nile Valley from the Eastern Desert is also a subject for examination.

In another study that I have posted numerous times in this thread, it has been proven that the "small scale geneflow" from the Levant came into the Nile occurred during the early Dynastic period or the Old Kingdom:

"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit
greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness
of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).

These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a "Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.

This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment.
(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)

None the less despite the small scale gene flow the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians still laid with more "black African" or "Negroid" populations until the Late Period. The study on the amarna confirm the overwhelming inner African affinities of Egyptians even during the New Kingdom times.

Once again, a source you claim supports you does not in fact do so. As for the more southerly areas: linka.

Reaching, as the source only mentions Egypt three times, including at the end notes where it states that there is not enough data on that population (along with other populations in the Sahara) to make inferences on the affects of a potential back migration.

You have already posted that, and I have already responded to it.

No you haven't, the same fucking source states that the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians lay with black Africans, despite potential small scale migration via the sinai during EDY/Old Kingdom times.

"Certain genetic markers". And that image groups Italians with the Egyptians. Way to go.

Those are modern Egyptians:

"However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results." (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

[Lord Zentei]

Is that so? You brush off the page I linked to regarding the rebuttal.

What have you "Rebutted"? The fact that the ancient Greeks were grounded into Europe biologically by the Dorians? Or are you claiming that the website link to a list of layman rebuttals to a shitload of studies from different authors is legit?

So... no response, then. Concession accepted. BTW, that link included several studies.

Yeah, because you provided a link to a review page, not the actual encyclopedia.

You dumb bitch <snip blah blah blah>

In contrast, reliable interpretations of the biological affinities of the people of lower Egypt are currently hampered by a lack of well preserved skeletal material, largely due to agricultural and settlement encroachment on archaeological sites as well as the high water table, which interferes with excavation and preservation of archaic and earlier levels. Examinations of the biological relatedness of skeletal populations of Lower Egypt to those of other areas are needed, however, because they should determine whether the archaeological evidence for Egyptian contacy with Syro-Palestine during the late Predynastic/Early Dynastic can be ascribed to trade relations or actual population movements. The archaeological and inscriptional evidence for contact suggests that gene flow between these areas was very likely. The biological affinity between peoples of Upper Egypt and the Sinai is also an important research question since archaeological evidence suggests a connection, presumably via the Red Sea. Migration into the Nile Valley from the Eastern Desert is also a subject for examination.

In another study that I have posted numerous times in this thread, it has been proven that the "small scale geneflow" from the Levant came into the Nile occurred during the early Dynastic period or the Old Kingdom:

And the fact that this study asserts migration during the early dynastic and Old Kingdom periods negates the fact that pre-dynastic migrations are asserted in your previous source, how? And you're aware that prolonged small scale migration can significantly alter a population?

None the less despite the small scale gene flow the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians still laid with more "black African" or "Negroid" populations until the Late Period. The study on the amarna confirm the overwhelming inner African affinities of Egyptians even during the New Kingdom times.

Riiiight.

And here: (linka)

Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first? Ideally, more dynastic samples than those from Abydos, Thebes, Qurneh, Tarkhan, Saqqara, Lisht, and Giza should be compared to address such a broad question. Yet excluding the Lisht and perhaps Saqqara outliers, it appears that overall dental homogeneity among these samples would argue against such a possibility (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). Specifically, an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11–12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19thþ Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time. Moreover, there is no conspicuous correlation between MMD and geographic distances within and between Upper and Lower Egypt. A similar pattern is evident when comparing First Dynasty Tarkhan to these same five Old Kingdom through Late Dynastic samples. All display moderate frequencies of the nine influential traits identified by CA, and a largely concordant occurrence of, and trends across, the remaining traits (Table 2). Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well. These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements.

So, in other words, there was no significant change during the late Dynastic period, the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom were very similar to those of the Late Dynastic. The early migration into the Nile Valley took place prior to and during the founding of the Kingdom, and the ethnic makeup did not change during the late Dynastic.

No you haven't, the same fucking source states that the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians lay with black Africans, despite potential small scale migration via the sinai during EDY/Old Kingdom times.

It lay with "more southerly Africans", according to your source. More about these southerly Africans:

When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component.

So much for that.

Once again, a source you claim supports you does not in fact do so. As for the more southerly areas: linka.

Reaching, as the source only mentions Egypt three times, including at the end notes where it states that there is not enough data on that population (along with other populations in the Sahara) to make inferences on the affects of a potential back migration.

That paper refers to the whole of the region, dumbass. And if it applies to "sub-Saharan Africa", it would apply to the north-East region too. And incidentally, what happened to your earlier claim rejecting back-migration into Africa, regardless of what effects are ascribed to it?

"Certain genetic markers". And that image groups Italians with the Egyptians. Way to go.

Those are modern Egyptians:

"However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results." (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

And therefore, why did you post that? "Certain genetic markers", right.

[Big Triece]

So... no response, then. Concession accepted. BTW, that link included several studies.

The study that I presented to you was:

"HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans."
European Journal Medical Genetics. 2006 Jan-Feb;49(1):43-56.
A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa l ed A, Boukef K.

"South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara."

No where in the link that you provided is this studies findings addressed. So where in the fuck has this and subsequently my claim that the ancient Greeks had Sub Saharan African admixture been refuted?

And the fact that this study asserts migration during the early dynastic and Old Kingdom periods

Your interpretation of that text is nothing more than unsupported and desperate reaching. No where does the author state that Lower Egyptians have been proven to show biological affinities with population in the Levant. It is merely a postulation made based on the noted fact that the Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians had cultural exchange their neighbors to the East. Further more the author states that remains from Lower Egypt dating back to Pre-Dynastic times are few, none the less with this limited evidence it has been found by more recent studies that early Lower Egyptians were distinct biologically from populations in the Near East during the same period:

"..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)

Like the populations in the Upper Nile the Lower Egyptians were also indigenous tropically adapted Africans, and group with such biologically and culturally.

negates the fact that pre-dynastic migrations are asserted in your previous source, how?

The more recent study that I cited states that the small scale migration associated with trade and military expansion, did not occur until after the establishment of Dynastic culture and more specifically during the early Dynastic-Old Kingdom period. They state that the minor biological changes in some early populations reflect this fact.

And you're aware that prolonged small scale migration can significantly alter a population?

Yes I am, but as noted by just about every scholar who has researched this topic, distinctive changes did not occur until the Late Period. Of course we know that those changes altered the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians from that which laying with more southerly African populations to that which grouped closer to Mediterraneans:

Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. –Zakrewski (2004) “Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania.”

and of course:

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- 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

Once again confirmation that the original ancient Egyptians were black Africans like those populations further south, until numerous Mediterranean invasions and prolonged small scale migration from that same region took it's toll on the original affinities of the Nile Valley populations.

Riiiight.

Not only did the American team who created the plaster essentially denounce the distorted words that were attributed to them by some media outlets, but even modern Egyptians called this out for the bullshit that it was:

Within Egypt, Hawass has been brawling lately with critics who question the methodology of the CT scan of Tut's mummy, and the forensic re-creation of his face. Hawass curbed the authority and docked the pay of one persistent foe, Ahmed Saleh, an archeological inspector for the Supreme Council who complained, among other things, that the procedures used in the facial re-creation made Tut look Caucasian, disrespecting the nation's African roots.

Linkto LA-times article

Now let's see what the real King Tut looked like:



compared to:



Here is another comparisons of King Tut:



Here is the Discovery Channel reconstruction of Tut (which did not drum up a storm):



Here's his Grandma and Grandpa:


Tiye


Amenhotep

Now which bust stands out the most?

And here: (linka).............So, in other words, there was no significant change during the late Dynastic period, the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom were very similar to those of the Late Dynastic. The early migration into the Nile Valley took place prior to and during the founding of the Kingdom, and the ethnic makeup did not change during the late Dynastic.

With you being the dumb fuck that you are, it's obvious that you don't understand what "continuity" means. This means that the original African populations never died out do to some sort of genocide or mass population displacement. This does not negate the fact that significant populations absorption and drastically altering biological affinity changes occurred, which Irish himself along with the two other studies above state that this distinction occurred. The genetic make up of modern Egyptians (even in the North) is confirmation that despite mounds of migration from Europe and the Middle East the African markers which characterized their core indigenous ancestors are still ever present.

That paper refers to the whole of the region, dumbass. And if it applies to "sub-Saharan Africa", it would apply to the north-East region too. And incidentally, what happened to your earlier claim rejecting back-migration into Africa, regardless of what effects are ascribed to it?

You dumb fuck the primary subject of that study were the West African Cameroonian populations, who yield up to 97% frequencies of haplogroup R. Despite the frequencies of this non African haplogroup in Western Africa, which was brought into Africa by a supposite back migration from Asia, those R carrying African populations are indistinguishable in phenotype from their E carrying neighbors:



Which could only mean that the populations who are postulated to have migrated back into Africa were not yet differentiated in phenotype from their earlier African ancestors. Then again much more work needs to be done on the subject of the origins of haplogroup R. This study is from 2002, and within the last decade several studies have proven that all non Africans (or even Africans with minimal non African ancestry) have Neanderthal ancestry, suggested that during the initial migrations out of Africa modern humans began to procreate with Neanderthals. With that being proven, then the one thing that would prove a back migration into Africa would be to test those populations in Cameroon with the extremely high frequencies of haplogroup R for Neanderthal ancestry. If it's proven that they do have Neanderthal ancestry then a back migration would ultimately be proven, if they do not then all Hell would likely break lose as this could only indicate that Haplgroup R (the signature marker of Europeans) originated in Africa.

None the less what does this have to do with ancient Egypt? You have been presented with conclusive evidence that the earliest remains found in Egypt exhibited a Sub Saharan African morphology.. Ironically you chose to dismiss those findings because of how far back it was, yet you would rather cling to the notion of an even more ancient back migration into Africa from Asia, as a way to assert that the populations of tens of thousands of years later during the Pre-Dynastic period were mixed with Africans and non Africans. Not mention that the very study that you cited barely even mentioned Egypt, and in those few instances stated that there was not enough data from that country to make any conclusions about them:

The present study reports the most extensive survey of Y-chromosome diversity in Africa, in terms of number of markers and populations, and has allowed us to initiate the disentangling of some of the emerging patterns of its complex variation. However, several areas of the continent have not been yet covered, including large portions of the Saharan/Sahelian belt (Niger and Chad),
northern Africa (from Tunisia to Egypt), and eastern Africa south of Ethiopia (Kenya and neighboring nation states).

Case and point you are a dumb fuck.

[Big Triece]

double post.

[Lord Zentei]

So... no response, then. Concession accepted. BTW, that link included several studies.

The study that I presented to you was:

"HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans."
European Journal Medical Genetics. 2006 Jan-Feb;49(1):43-56.
A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa l ed A, Boukef K.

"South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara."

No where in the link that you provided is this studies findings addressed. So where in the fuck has this and subsequently my claim that the ancient Greeks had Sub Saharan African admixture been refuted?

That study used data from the Arnaiz-Villena paper, which in turn was dropped.

This line of argumentation is not going to benefit you. Here's a passage from Wikipedia, since frankly, this bullshit of yours doesn't merit anything better linka:

Greeks and Sub-Saharans

Arnaiz-Villena et al. published five scientific articles, where, among other claims, they concluded that the Greek population originates from Sub-Saharan Africa and do not cluster with other Mediterraneans.[4][10][11][12][13] The explanation they offered is that a large number of Sub-Saharans had migrated to Greece (but not to Crete) during ancient times.[4][10][11][12] Those conclusions were related to the "Black Athena" debate and became embroiled in disputes between Greek and ethnic Macedonian nationalists.[14]

They cited Dörk et al. for having found a marker on Chromosome 7 that is common to Black Africans and, among Caucasoid populations, is found only in Greeks.[10][15] Dörk et al. did find an African-type of cystic fibrosis mutation in Greeks, however this mutation was extremely rare; it was detected only in three Greek families.[15] The explanation they offered is quite different from Arnaiz-Villena's. Dörk et al. state: "Historical contacts-for example, under Alexander the Great or during the ancient Minoan civilization-may provide an explanation for the common ancestry of disease mutations in these ethnically diverse populations."[15]

Hajjej et al. claimed to have confirmed the genetic relatedness between Greeks and Sub-Saharans.[16][17] However they used the same methodology (same gene markers) and same data samples like Arnaiz-Villena et al.[4][11][16][17]

Other authors contradict Arnaiz-Villena's results. In The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton, 1994), Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza grouped Greeks with other European and Mediterranean populations based on 120 loci (view MDS plot[18]). Then, Ayub et al. 2003[19] did the same thing using 182 loci (view dendrogram[20]).[21] Another study was conducted in 2004 at Skopje's University of Ss. Kiril and Metodij, using high-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 according to Arnaiz-Villena's methodology. Contrary to Arnaiz-Villena's conclusion, no sub-Saharan admixture was detected in the Greek sample.[21]

In a sample of 125 Greeks from Thessaloniki and Sarakatsani, 2 Asian-specific mtDNA sequences (M and D) were detected (1.6%). No sub-Saharan African genes were observed in this population, therefore, non-Caucasoid maternal ancestry in Greece is very low, as elsewhere in Europe.[22] Additionally, in a sample of 366 Greeks from thirteen locations in continental Greece, Crete, Lesvos and Chios, a single African haplogroup A Y Chromosome was found (0.3%). This marks the only instance to date of sub-Saharan DNA being discovered in Greece. In another sample of 42 Greeks, one sequence of the Siberian Tat-C haplogroup turned up, while other studies with larger sample populations have failed to detect this paternal marker in the Greek gene pool[23][24] and that its frequencies are actually much higher in Scandinavian and Slavic populations.[25][26] Also, a paper has detected clades of haplogroups J and E3b that were likely not part of pre-historic migrations into Europe, but rather spread by later historical movements. Greeks possess none of the lineages denoting North African ancestry within the last 5000 years and have only 2% (3/148) of the marker J-M267, which may reflect more recent Middle Eastern admixture.[27]

Jobling et al., in their genetics textbook "Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease", state that Arnaiz-Villena’s conclusions on the Sub-Saharan origin of Greeks, is an example of arbitrary interpretation and that the methodology used is not appropriate for this kind of research.[28] Karatzios C. et al., made a systematic review of genetics and historical documents, showing great flaws in Arnaiz-Villena’s methodology and theory on the Greeks/Sub-Saharan genetic relationship.[29]

Three respected geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, criticised Arnaiz-Villena's methodology.[30] They stated that "Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The limitations are made evident by the authors’ extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups." Arnaiz-Villena et al. countered this criticism in a response, stating "single-locus studies, whether using HLA or other markers, are common in this field and are regularly published in the specialist literature".[31]

I might add that peddling fraudulent shit like this doesn't exactly benefit your credibility.

And the fact that this study asserts migration during the early dynastic and Old Kingdom periods

Your interpretation of that text is nothing more than unsupported and desperate reaching. No where does the author state that Lower Egyptians have been proven to show biological affinities with population in the Levant. It is merely a postulation made based on the noted fact that the Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians had cultural exchange their neighbors to the East. Further more the author states that remains from Lower Egypt dating back to Pre-Dynastic times are few, none the less with this limited evidence it has been found by more recent studies that early Lower Egyptians were distinct biologically from populations in the Near East during the same period:

"..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)

Like the populations in the Upper Nile the Lower Egyptians were also indigenous tropically adapted Africans, and group with such biologically and culturally.

Is that so. Here's a couple of points from your hero, Keita:
* Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley.
* However, this haplotype has arisen independently multiple times throughout human history.

Furthermore, he asserts the following:
* Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic.
* The current inhabitants are descendents of of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants.

This is from Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005. Translation: the presence of haplotype XI in the Egyptian population is not necessarely an subsaharan origin, at least not exclusively.

negates the fact that pre-dynastic migrations are asserted in your previous source, how?

The more recent study that I cited states that the small scale migration associated with trade and military expansion, did not occur until after the establishment of Dynastic culture and more specifically during the early Dynastic-Old Kingdom period. They state that the minor biological changes in some early populations reflect this fact.

It states no such thing. It speaks of migrations "particularly" during the early Dynastic and Old Kingdom periods, but does not reject migrations during the pre-Dynastic. In short, you are full of shit, as per usual. The previous study stands, along with its more sweeping conclusions.

And you're aware that prolonged small scale migration can significantly alter a population?

Yes I am, but as noted by just about every scholar who has researched this topic, distinctive changes did not occur until the Late Period. Of course we know that those changes altered the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians from that which laying with more southerly African populations to that which grouped closer to Mediterraneans:

Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. –Zakrewski (2004) “Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania.”

And how do you account for the studies I presented from Irish(2005) and Brace(2005) in my previous post?

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- 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

Once again confirmation that the original ancient Egyptians were black Africans like those populations further south, until numerous Mediterranean

The wording used in that paper is hardly compelling vindication of your position. They're more related than during the late period, no major population changes during the Neolithic (not what I was talking about earlier, so that's irrelevant) and make a cautious interpretation based on dental health data... no, that's not enough, sorry.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/L ... ingTut.jpg
Riiiight.

Not only did the American team who created the plaster essentially denounce the distorted words that were attributed to them by some media outlets, but even modern Egyptians called this out for the bullshit that it was:

Within Egypt, Hawass has been brawling lately with critics who question the methodology of the CT scan of Tut's mummy, and the forensic re-creation of his face. Hawass curbed the authority and docked the pay of one persistent foe, Ahmed Saleh, an archeological inspector for the Supreme Council who complained, among other things, that the procedures used in the facial re-creation made Tut look Caucasian, disrespecting the nation's African roots.

Linkto LA-times article

Right, the article in that link speaks of Hawass denouncing the presence of the bust in the museum exhibition on account of the fact that it's not an art object and not historic.

"This is an art exhibition. You don't ruin it with speculation." The head can be seen, he decides, but only in photographs. "Then it's perfect."

You are so full of shit, Big Triece. Or perhaps you got your links fucked up again?

Now let's see what the real King Tut looked like:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... t1_220.jpg

compared to:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... e_Boys.jpg

Here is another comparisons of King Tut:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/i ... bf2168.jpg

Here is the Discovery Channel reconstruction of Tut (which did not drum up a storm):

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/i ... bf3516.jpg

Here's his Grandma and Grandpa:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/i ... bf2204.jpg
Tiye

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/i ... bf21a7.jpg
Amenhotep

Now which bust stands out the most?

Right, what did Thanas say about using pictures and sculptures for reference? That they're unreliable, and shouldn't be used. Case in point, here are other pictures of the "real" King Tutankhamun:

And here: (linka).............So, in other words, there was no significant change during the late Dynastic period, the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom were very similar to those of the Late Dynastic. The early migration into the Nile Valley took place prior to and during the founding of the Kingdom, and the ethnic makeup did not change during the late Dynastic.

With you being the dumb fuck that you are, it's obvious that you don't understand what "continuity" means. This means that the original African populations never died out do to some sort of genocide or mass population displacement. This does not negate the fact that significant populations absorption and drastically altering biological affinity changes occurred, which Irish himself along with the two other studies above state that this distinction occurred. The genetic make up of modern Egyptians (even in the North) is confirmation that despite mounds of migration from Europe and the Middle East the African markers which characterized their core indigenous ancestors are still ever present.

Yeah, except where the question in the article was "Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first?" The answer was "no". Misquoting that passage when I just showed it to you is highly disingenuous.

Moreover, the article continues:

Lastly, the Roman-period specimens are much more closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait concordance (Table 2), low and insignificant MMDs (Table 4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so samples (Fig. 2). El Hesa is more divergent (Figs. 2, 3, 5); this divergence was shown to be driven by several extreme trait frequencies, including very high UI2 interruption groove and UM3 absence, and very low UM1 Carabelli’s trait. As above, the first two traits are common in Europeans and western Asians; the latter is rare in these areas, as well as greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1997). Like the Greeks, the Romans did not migrate to Lower and especially Upper Egypt in large numbers (Peacock, 2000). As such, the distinctive trait frequencies of El Hesa were probably not due to Roman gene flow. There is no evidence that Kharga and Hawara received such influence. Thus the results, at least for these samples, do not support significant biological differentiation in the Egyptians of this time relative to their dynastic predecessors.

That paper refers to the whole of the region, dumbass. And if it applies to "sub-Saharan Africa", it would apply to the north-East region too. And incidentally, what happened to your earlier claim rejecting back-migration into Africa, regardless of what effects are ascribed to it?

You dumb fuck the primary subject of that study were the West African Cameroonian populations, who yield up to 97% frequencies of haplogroup R. Despite the frequencies of this non African haplogroup in Western Africa, which was brought into Africa by a supposite back migration from Asia, those R carrying African populations are indistinguishable in phenotype from their E carrying neighbors:

http://www.yourcommonwealth.org/wp-cont ... 1/02/s.jpg

Which could only mean that the populations who are postulated to have migrated back into Africa were not yet differentiated in phenotype from their earlier African ancestors. Then again much more work needs to be done on the subject of the origins of haplogroup R. This study is from 2002, and within the last decade several studies have proven that all non Africans (or even Africans with minimal non African ancestry) have Neanderthal ancestry, suggested that during the initial migrations out of Africa modern humans began to procreate with Neanderthals. With that being proven, then the one thing that would prove a back migration into Africa would be to test those populations in Cameroon with the extremely high frequencies of haplogroup R for Neanderthal ancestry. If it's proven that they do have Neanderthal ancestry then a back migration would ultimately be proven, if they do not then all Hell would likely break lose as this could only indicate that Haplgroup R (the signature marker of Europeans) originated in Africa.

Who is talking about central Africans becoming differentiated in phenotype? This was a rebuttal to your blanket claim that there was NO back migration into Africa.

[Big Triece]

That study used data from the Arnaiz-Villena paper, which in turn was dropped.

The only perceived problem that the individual on that website can point out with Arnaiz's HLA technique is that Japanese samples cluster with various Sub Saharan African populations, and from that he insists that this is incorrect. Despite the fact that HLA genes comparisons have continued to be used (in the medical field for one) and also find the same broad affinity in certain conditions between Africans and Japanese populations:







The Y-DNA profile of modern Greeks is over a third African (Haplogroup E is African in case your stupid ass didn't know) How in the fuck can you deny that recent African gene flow penetrated this regions and particularly in Greece?

Greeks seem to share genetic HLA features (Chr 6) with Sub-Saharans. The relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharans has been confirmed by other studies based on chromosome 7 genetic markers. "HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans.HLA class I and class II polymorphisms in Tunisian Berbers March 2011, Vol. 38, No. 2 , Pages 156-164 (doi:10.3109/03014460.2010.504195)

This 2011 study is confirmation of the same fucking thing that the 2006 study stated, which I cited earlier. If you read the passage correctly from this study it states that aside from African affinities seen in Greeks via HLA analysis (Arnaiz technique), Chromosome 7 genetic markers also confirm this same fucking Sub Saharan African affinity. Not only is that further support for the HLA analysis, but even other techniques confirm the African affinities of the Greeks through the same fucking North African route.

Link

Is that so. Here's a couple of points from your hero, Keita:
* Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley.
* However, this haplotype has arisen independently multiple times throughout human history.

How in the fuck does that refute what I've just stated? That Haplotype originated in Sub Saharan East Africa migrated northward into Egypt and bi-directionally into the Middle East and Northwest Africa:

Furthermore, he asserts the following:
* Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic.

Case and fucking point, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Afro-Asiatic is a language phylum which originated in Sub Saharan East Africa and spread northward into the Nile and finally bi-directionally into the Middle East (Semitic) and Northwest African (Berber):

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

Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

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.......

One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.

So what in the fuck were you trying to prove by stating that ancient Egyptians was an Afro-Asiatic langauge?

* The current inhabitants are descendents of of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants.

The full quote states:

The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now speak Arabic in the main but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic, and current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants..."Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

Keita also goes on to state the exact same thing that is quoted in the future Ricaut study, about the Mushabi migrating from Africa, into the Levant and further up into Anatolia. Watch where you steal your quotes from you dumb fuck.

Also once again no one denies that modern Egyptians are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. What is absurd to assert is that despite the numerous noted invasions, "pro-longed small scale migration:, and affinity shifts observed since Pharonic times that modern Egyptians are the splitting image of their ancient Egyptian ancestors. When in fact biological evidence confirms that populations in more southerly regions of Africa (where the original ancient Egyptians came from) phenotypically the best modern populations to represent what they looked like.

It states no such thing. It speaks of migrations "particularly" during the early Dynastic and Old Kingdom periods, but does not reject migrations during the pre-Dynastic. In short, you are full of shit, as per usual. The previous study stands, along with its more sweeping conclusions.

Since you're trying to lawyer today let's review the relevant quote:

This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment.(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)

You dumb fuck the author is postulating if an in-migration even fucking occurred. The mere fact that Pre-Dynastic times are not mentioned as a potential time frame for this migration negates the possibility that it occurred at that time. Even when you read the entire passage common fucking sense would tell you that if an earlier migration occurred then the evidence via biological affinities would have been noted in the Pre-Dynastic populations samples. Instead the only affinity noted for populations during this period is that which like with more "southern or "Negroid" groups.

And how do you account for the studies I presented from Irish(2005) and Brace(2005) in my previous post?

The study from Brace has absolutely nothing to do with this finding and ultimately debunks what you are trying to prove. Hence why you could not respond to my schooling of you on it's interpretation with nothing more than petty one sentence reply. Furthermore, if you don't want to take my interpretation of Brace's 2005 study, then I can just throw Ricaut 2008 into the picture which used Brace 2005 as more recent evidence to confirm the "Niger Congo" affinities of Pre-historic/recent Northeast African populations and indirectly the Natufanians and early Anatolians.

Your fundamental dumbassness in regards to Irish 2006 is that you are incorrectly interpreting the finding of "continuity" from Pre-Dynastic to modern times as a refutation of the noted fact that the biological affinities of Pharonic Egyptians shifted from more southerly Africans to Mediterranean during the Late Period. The fact that the Starling 2007 study incorporated the findings of Irish 2006 and the Zakrzewski as both being confirmed, proves my point. Modern Egyptians are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, but due to substantial gene flow from the Middle East and Europe beginning during the Late Dynastic period and onward their biological affinities have been altered and are distinct from the earliest pharonic Egyptians. Starling 2007 once again:

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.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- 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

Once again as you can hopefully read, both continuity over time and biological affinity changes are proven.

The wording used in that paper is hardly compelling vindication of your position. They're more related than during the late period

The early ancient Egyptians more related to Pre-Dynastic Sudanese populations (Nubians) than they were to their own Late Dynastic descendants, and this was due to increased gene flow from the Mediterranean during those periods. This finding has been confirmed by Godde 2009:

Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.

Only a dumbass (YOU) would try to fight this consistent finding.

no major population changes during the Neolithic

Which even further discredits your shitty assertions that study you hi-jacked from Racial Reality asserting a major population input from the Middle East during the Neolithic.

no, that's not enough, sorry.

"This is an art exhibition. You don't ruin it with speculation." The head can be seen, he decides, but only in photographs."Then it's perfect."...........You are so full of shit, Big Triece. Or perhaps you got your links fucked up again?

Oops wrong link, here's the right one

Once again the statement by Amed Saleh:

Ahmed Saleh, an archeological inspector for the Supreme Council who complained, among other things, that the procedures used in the facial re-creation made Tut look Caucasian, disrespecting the nation's African roots.

So in other words modern Egyptian authorities (aside from the now booted head of Antiquities) called the reconstruction out on it's bullshit, and were obviously equating African with black (as many modern Egyptians do). From that it is stated that Egypt's roots were "African" and this "black".

Right, what did Thanas say

I don't give a fuck what Thanas said, who is he?

]about using pictures and sculptures for reference? That they're unreliable, and shouldn't be used. Case in point, here are other pictures of the "real" King Tutankhamun:

Yet another retard move on your part! In response to the ancient depictions of Tut that I present showing his actual skin color, you present two fucking statues in which EVERYTHING is made in and color in the same fucking substance.

Who is talking about central Africans becoming differentiated in phenotype?

[/quote]

The study that you cited to support a back migration was centered around the damn near 100% frequencies of haplogroup R found in WEST (you dumb fuck) African populations. It mentioned Egypt less than 5 times in the entire fucking study. You attempted to assert that this back migration resulted in an influx of non African genetics and phenotype into Egypt and subsequently the African populations apparently most affected by the migration (West Africans). The fact that the populations whom were most affected by the supposite back migration look like this:



Spits in the face of what you were attempting to argue.

[Lord Zentei]

That study used data from the Arnaiz-Villena paper, which in turn was dropped.

The only perceived problem that the individual on that website can point out with Arnaiz's HLA technique is that Japanese samples cluster with various Sub Saharan African populations, and from that he insists that this is incorrect. Despite the fact that HLA genes comparisons have continued to be used (in the medical field for one) and also find the same broad affinity in certain conditions between Africans and Japanese populations:

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/6479 ... hritis.jpg

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... pesmap.jpg

http://vieilleeurope.files.wordpress.co ... =637&h=722

The Y-DNA profile of modern Greeks is over a third African (Haplogroup E is African in case your stupid ass didn't know) How in the fuck can you deny that recent African gene flow penetrated this regions and particularly in Greece?

That was not the basis for the critique against Arnaiz-Villena, and you know it full well. And obviously there has been gene-flow into the European coast of the Meditarranean from Africa, theres a pretty huge difference between sying that and saying that the Ancient Greeks were Sub-Saharan. On that note, this paper may be of interest: (linka)

Abstract

Throughout centuries, the geographic location of the island of Crete has been one of the leading factors shaping the composition of its population. Invasions and commercial and cultural ties at various time periods with European, Middle Eastern, and North African civilizations have created a collage of genetic and/or cultural influences from each of these regions within the island. Previous Y-chromosome diversity analyses uncovered pronounced differences in the frequency distribution of haplogroups from a mountain refugium and surrounding lowland populations of eastern Crete. In this study, the current geographic stratification of mtDNA haplotypes in eastern Crete was explored to elucidate potential sources of maternal gene flow. Our work includes a comparative characterization of two lowland collections from the Heraklion and Lasithi Prefectures in eastern Crete, as well as of an isolated mountain population from the Lasithi Plateau, all three previously examined using Y-chromosome markers. In addition to the presence of European mtDNA haplogroups in all three collections, our analyses reveal a significant contribution of Middle Eastern and Central Asian genetic signatures in the island of Crete, and particularly in the two populations from the Lasithi region at the eastern-most portion of the island. Close association between these Cretan groups and the Balkans can also be discerned, which in the case of the Lasithi Plateau corroborates previously uncovered Y-chromosome affiliations with the same geographic region. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2008. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

So, in other words, the ancient Cretans were not sub-Saharan. Never mind that the sickle-cell grants adaption resistance to malaria which was rampant in the Mediterranean, so it's hardly a reliable marker for ancestry.

Greeks seem to share genetic HLA features (Chr 6) with Sub-Saharans. The relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharans has been confirmed by other studies based on chromosome 7 genetic markers. "HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans.HLA class I and class II polymorphisms in Tunisian Berbers March 2011, Vol. 38, No. 2 , Pages 156-164 (doi:10.3109/03014460.2010.504195)

This 2011 study is confirmation of the same fucking thing that the 2006 study stated, which I cited earlier. If you read the passage correctly from this study it states that aside from African affinities seen in Greeks via HLA analysis (Arnaiz technique), Chromosome 7 genetic markers also confirm this same fucking Sub Saharan African affinity. Not only is that further support for the HLA analysis, but even other techniques confirm the African affinities of the Greeks through the same fucking North African route.

Link

You really are really not reading the links, are you: linka
These studies used the same data set and the same methods as the faulty Arnaiz-Villena paper. Cut the shit, already.

Is that so. Here's a couple of points from your hero, Keita:
* Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley.
* However, this haplotype has arisen independently multiple times throughout human history.

How in the fuck does that refute what I've just stated? That Haplotype originated in Sub Saharan East Africa migrated northward into Egypt and bi-directionally into the Middle East and Northwest Africa:

http://www.africanamericanculturalcente ... bRoute.png

Do you understand what the phrase "originated independently multiple times" means? Apparently not.

* The current inhabitants are descendents of of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants.

The full quote states:

The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now speak Arabic in the main but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic, and current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants..."Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

HA HA HA HA HA!! "In the main, though not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants." Exactly. NO ONE claims that they're WHOLLY descendants of the pre-neolithic inhabitanst, but being IN THE MAIN descended from the pre-neolithic inhabitants means just that - that for the post part, they're the same population! And you just posted a quote that corroborates this.

Keita also goes on to state the exact same thing that is quoted in the future Ricaut study, about the Mushabi migrating from Africa, into the Levant and further up into Anatolia. Watch where you steal your quotes from you dumb fuck.

Also once again no one denies that modern Egyptians are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. What is absurd to assert is that despite the numerous noted invasions, "pro-longed small scale migration:, and affinity shifts observed since Pharonic times that modern Egyptians are the splitting image of their ancient Egyptian ancestors. When in fact biological evidence confirms that populations in more southerly regions of Africa (where the original ancient Egyptians came from) phenotypically the best modern populations to represent what they looked like.

No one is claiming that they're the spitting image of the ancients either. If they're IN THE MAIN descendants of the ancients, why should they look more like levantines and north Africans than Ethiopians? Make sense.

It states no such thing. It speaks of migrations "particularly" during the early Dynastic and Old Kingdom periods, but does not reject migrations during the pre-Dynastic. In short, you are full of shit, as per usual. The previous study stands, along with its more sweeping conclusions.

Since you're trying to lawyer today let's review the relevant quote:

This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment.(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)

You dumb fuck the author is postulating if an in-migration even fucking occurred. The mere fact that Pre-Dynastic times are not mentioned as a potential time frame for this migration negates the possibility that it occurred at that time. Even when you read the entire passage common fucking sense would tell you that if an earlier migration occurred then the evidence via biological affinities would have been noted in the Pre-Dynastic populations samples. Instead the only affinity noted for populations during this period is that which like with more "southern or "Negroid" groups.

That does not preculde pre-dynastic migration, you idiot. The Dynastic civilization didn't appear overnight, spun from whole cloth; the ancient Egyptians themselves counted the predynastic rulers among the kings of Egypt. So commenting on the source of the immigration as being a result of the development of trade, etc. doesn't preclude pre-dynastic migration. The fact that one paper doesn't mention pre-dynastic migration does not refute the paper which does mention it: the only way it could do that if it out and out denied pre-dynastic migration.

And how do you account for the studies I presented from Irish(2005) and Brace(2005) in my previous post?

The study from Brace has absolutely nothing to do with this finding and ultimately debunks what you are trying to prove. Hence why you could not respond to my schooling of you on it's interpretation with nothing more than petty one sentence reply. Furthermore, if you don't want to take my interpretation of Brace's 2005 study, then I can just throw Ricaut 2008 into the picture which used Brace 2005 as more recent evidence to confirm the "Niger Congo" affinities of Pre-historic/recent Northeast African populations and indirectly the Natufanians and early Anatolians.

Your fundamental dumbassness in regards to Irish 2006 is that you are incorrectly interpreting the finding of "continuity" from Pre-Dynastic to modern times as a refutation of the noted fact that the biological affinities of Pharonic Egyptians shifted from more southerly Africans to Mediterranean during the Late Period. The fact that the Starling 2007 study incorporated the findings of Irish 2006 and the Zakrzewski as both being confirmed, proves my point. Modern Egyptians are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, but due to substantial gene flow from the Middle East and Europe beginning during the Late Dynastic period and onward their biological affinities have been altered and are distinct from the earliest pharonic Egyptians. Starling 2007 once again:

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.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- 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

Once again as you can hopefully read, both continuity over time and biological affinity changes are proven.

And once again, you're implying that I have claimed major population displacement when I've said no such thing. And incidentally, are you talking about this paper from Ricaut?

The dendrogram produced by Ward's clustering procedure for the global data set is shown in Figure 3 and provides a relatively similar representation of the MMDst distance matrix than that provide by the MDS analysis. The populations clearly fall into two groups. The first main group can be broken down into two subgroups: (1) all the recent sub-Saharan populations and (2) mainly Central, East, and Northeast Eurasians. West Eurasians form the second main group, which is also subdivided into two subgroups. One of these subgroups includes all the eastern Mediterranean populations (three ancient Egyptian/Sudanese populations from Naqada, Gizeh, and Kerma as well as the Cypriot/Turkish, Greek, and Sagalassian populations) and the Scandinavian sample; the second subgroup includes the other West Eurasian populations.

So... sub-Saharan =/= Egyptian.

The wording used in that paper is hardly compelling vindication of your position. They're more related than during the late period

The early ancient Egyptians more related to Pre-Dynastic Sudanese populations (Nubians) than they were to their own Late Dynastic descendants, and this was due to increased gene flow from the Mediterranean during those periods. This finding has been confirmed by Godde 2009:

Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.

Only a dumbass (YOU) would try to fight this consistent finding.

Too bad Irish (2005) disagrees with you. So the finding is hardly "consistent".

no major population changes during the Neolithic

Which even further discredits your shitty assertions that study you hi-jacked from Racial Reality asserting a major population input from the Middle East during the Neolithic.

Still whining about Racial Reality? Just wow. Here's a hint: just because a study disagrees with you does not mean that it was hijacked from the board of this nemisis of yours, nor does anyone here care about him/her/it/whatever.

no, that's not enough, sorry.

http://oisforonward.com/wp-content/uplo ... ubborn.jpg

Awesome rebuttal so, in-situ evolution forced by dental health somehow proves - what? Did you miss the points raised earlier on this topic?

"This is an art exhibition. You don't ruin it with speculation." The head can be seen, he decides, but only in photographs."Then it's perfect."...........You are so full of shit, Big Triece. Or perhaps you got your links fucked up again?

Oops wrong link, here's the right one

Once again the statement by Amed Saleh:

Ahmed Saleh, an archeological inspector for the Supreme Council who complained, among other things, that the procedures used in the facial re-creation made Tut look Caucasian, disrespecting the nation's African roots.

So in other words modern Egyptian authorities (aside from the now booted head of Antiquities) called the reconstruction out on it's bullshit, and were obviously equating African with black (as many modern Egyptians do). From that it is stated that Egypt's roots were "African" and this "black".

What, is that it? A single paragraph in a lengthy tribute to Hawass? So, there are butt-hurt Afrocentrists in Egypt too, so what? Note that this guy objected to the methodology because the conclusion offended his sensibilities, not based on any methodological grounds. And you're still hung up on equating "black" with "African".

Right, what did Thanas say

I don't give a fuck what Thanas said, who is he?

He's a moderator of this board, whom you lied to pretty consistently a bit further back in this thread.

]about using pictures and sculptures for reference? That they're unreliable, and shouldn't be used. Case in point, here are other pictures of the "real" King Tutankhamun:

Yet another retard move on your part! In response to the ancient depictions of Tut that I present showing his actual skin color, you present two fucking statues in which EVERYTHING is made in and color in the same fucking substance.

As others have explained to you multiple times, Egyptian art was highly stylized and symbolic, so one cannot infer actual appearances from them.

Who is talking about central Africans becoming differentiated in phenotype?

The study that you cited to support a back migration was centered around the damn near 100% frequencies of haplogroup R found in WEST (you dumb fuck) African populations. It mentioned Egypt less than 5 times in the entire fucking study. You attempted to assert that this back migration resulted in an influx of non African genetics and phenotype into Egypt and subsequently the African populations apparently most affected by the migration (West Africans). The fact that the populations whom were most affected by the supposite back migration look like this:

http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/october ... n_kids.jpg

Spits in the face of what you were attempting to argue.

[/quote]
It seems that you're too hung up on your own bullshit to try to understand what I said, even though I expressed myself in plain English. Oh, well.

[Big Triece]

That was not the basis for the critique against Arnaiz-Villena, and you know it full well.

Yes it was. In just about every analysis mentioned on that website which cited Arnaiz's method finding biological affinities with ancient Greeks and Sub Saharan African populations, the crowning point used by the author of that website was to point to the "off relationship" found between Japanese and some South African populations.

And obviously there has been gene-flow into the European coast of the Meditarranean from Africa, theres a pretty huge difference between sying that and saying that the Ancient Greeks were Sub-Saharan.

You lying strawmanning piece of shit. When in the fuck did I state that the ancient Greeks were Sub Saharan Africans? My entire point is to show you that those Europeans are heavily admixed with Sub Saharan Africans and even Middle Easterners. How in the fuck do you equate that as me calling basically calling those Europeans "Sub Saharan African" transplants? You replied with this strawman argument because you have no rebuttal to the obvious Sub Saharan African affinities of the Greeks, and therefore your little article about their European affinities is irrelevant bullshit that no one has ever disputed.

So, in other words, the ancient Cretans were not sub-Saharan.

Show me the exact quotation where I've asserted that they were, or admit that you are a desperate strawmanning piece of shit.

You really are really not reading the links, are you: linka These studies used the same data set and the same methods as the faulty Arnaiz-Villena paper.

The fact that Arnaiz's technique is continued to be used and built upon by other researchers to this very day shows that his technique has considerable merit, despite the cries of some butthurt Eurocentric.

Do you understand what the phrase "originated independently multiple times" means? Apparently not.

Despite that fact the evidence is overwhelming that this marker seen in Egypt came from the Horn of Africa. Every piece of evidence presented shows that this region bares one of the (if not 'the') closest relationship towards Pre-Dynastic Egypt.

HA HA HA HA HA!! "In the main, though not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants." Exactly. NO ONE claims that they're WHOLLY descendants of the pre-neolithic inhabitanst, but being IN THE MAIN descended from the pre-neolithic inhabitants means just that

You dumb fuck, the quote is saying that modern Egyptians are the main descendants of the ancient Egyptians, WHO IN THE FUCK DISPUTES THAT FACT? The reason why they are not "wholly" the descendants as proven time and time again in this thread is because the fact that they are also the descendants numerous foreign invaders from various regions across the Mediterranean and Europe. Your strawman arguments just show how much your heart is vested into believing a fucking Eurocentric myth, it's quite honestly pathetic.

that for the post part, they're the same population! And you just posted a quote that corroborates this.

No you dumb fuck this proves that "continuity" has been maintained since that period. Do you need another fucking schooling on what "continuity" means again?

No one is claiming that they're the spitting image of the ancients either. If they're IN THE MAIN descendants of the ancients, why should they look more like levantines and north Africans than Ethiopians? Make sense.

Ok your deliberate miswording of what that quotation says is what appears to be driving your desperate stawman argument, so let's nip this shit in the bud by reposting the statement:

The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now speak Arabic in the main but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic, and current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants..."Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

In the main means exactly what it means to anyone with common sense that the populations in Egypt while enduring multiple foreign invasions has retained large-sizable amounts of their original more southerly African ancestry. As you probably well know this does not mean that they are the population that best resembles what the ancient Egyptians looked like, and in fact in this same fucking study Keita states that modern urban northern Egyptians are not a good representative for what their original Egyptian ancestors looked like (black Africans):

"However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results." (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

and

"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".- Keita (2005), pp. 564

Do you understand what this means? Do you need me to break the shit down any further? Are you going to continue to make weak ass strawman arguments to support moot points?

So commenting on the source of the immigration as being a result of the development of trade, etc. doesn't preclude pre-dynastic migration.

Once again let's walk through the relevant quotation:

This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. (Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)

The state of development was indigenous and there may have been migration from the Levant. That "POTENTIAL" migration occurred after the establishment of Dynastic culture. The potential migration occurred after Dynastic culture was established. Why would the evidence and subsequently a discussion of Pre-Dynastic migration from the Levant be omitted by the author, if there was any? Why is the only potential evidence presented suggesting a migration from the Levant into Egypt only noted to have came later? You are desperately holding on to speculative theories, through the twisting the words of numerous studies. What is the motive for your dumbassness?

And once again, you're implying that I have claimed major population displacement when I've said no such thing. And incidentally, are you talking about this paper from Ricaut?

No you dumb fuck I know that you're not claiming a major population replacement. What you're trying to prove based on your refuted interpretation of Irish is that the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians remained constant, despite significant in migration from the Mediterranean. The studies that I've just posted clearly tells you what is really meant by "continuity" and that this does not mean that there was not a shift in biological affinities in Egypt across different time periods. In fact it proves that there was a shift in biological affinities from that of Black Africans to the south, to that which began to inch towards Mediterranean population to the north and east by Late period times.

(three ancient Egyptian/Sudanese populations from Naqada, Gizeh, and Kerma as well as the Cypriot/Turkish, Greek, and Sagalassian populations) and the Scandinavian sample; the second subgroup includes the other West Eurasian populations..............So... sub-Saharan =/= Egyptian.

You do realize that Kerma is ancient Nubia/Sudanese? You also realize that out linear in that primary cluster of Egyptians and Sudanese Nubians, is the Late Periods Giza Sample? The primary cluster is between Pre-Dynastic Egypt (Naqada) and Kerma (Nubia). Do you even understand what you are trying argue? Once again don't bring RR's typological misinterpretations is select studies outside of his domain, BECAUSE HE WON'T EVEN DO THAT IS DAMN SELF...HE KNOWS BETTER.

Too bad Irish (2005) disagrees with you. So the finding is hardly "consistent".

Once again dumb fuck (your new name) your fundamental misunderstanding of the Irish's use the term "continuity" and your persistence on relying on that misinterpretation in the mist of more qualified individuals (scholars) providing an in dept interpretation of Egyptian population history (taking into account Irish 2006 and others) shows just how fucking desperate you are to make a point that you can't back. In essence YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT IRISH 2006 admit that you are or just shut the fuck up about it.

Still whining about Racial Reality?

Apparently above you are still hi-jacking his bullshit misinterpretations, so yes he is relevant. With your following of his misinterpretations it's inevitable what you are about to argue (which even goes against most of the board members of Stardestroyer). I personally can't wait to see you do it though.

Awesome rebuttal so, in-situ evolution forced by dental health somehow proves - what?

It means that there were no "wandering Caucasoids" who entered the Nile Valley during the Neolithic, which your study asserts.

What, is that it? A single paragraph in a lengthy tribute to Hawass?

In it contains the fact that there is common knowledge amongst Egyptian, as to where the ancient Egyptians came from and what they looked like. It proves that they know (even though some might not be comfortable with outright saying it) that they were black Africans from further south.



Listen to this Egyptian historian. I guess she must be another "Afrocentric" Egyptian, because she states that the early ancient Egyptians looked like Horn Africans (Somalis). Notice no mention of Levantine admxiture, despite the fact that she appears to be affected by it. Why can she (an Egyptian historian with actual vested) admit this truth, but some Europeans and Euro Americans (especially the latter) feel so butt hurt over these facts? Is it that damn symbolic and detrimental to your belief system (what ever that might be) that you cannot accept this fact:

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

They were black Africans:





Scholars have finally come to recognize that they were and yet.................we still have people like you

[Lord Zentei]

And obviously there has been gene-flow into the European coast of the Meditarranean from Africa, theres a pretty huge difference between sying that and saying that the Ancient Greeks were Sub-Saharan.

You lying strawmanning piece of shit. When in the fuck did I state that the ancient Greeks were Sub Saharan Africans? My entire point is to show you that those Europeans are heavily admixed with Sub Saharan Africans and even Middle Easterners. How in the fuck do you equate that as me calling basically calling those Europeans "Sub Saharan African" transplants? You replied with this strawman argument because you have no rebuttal to the obvious Sub Saharan African affinities of the Greeks, and therefore your little article about their European affinities is irrelevant bullshit that no one has ever disputed.

So, in other words, the ancient Cretans were not sub-Saharan.

Show me the exact quotation where I've asserted that they were, or admit that you are a desperate strawmanning piece of shit.

It takes a special kind of cutzpah for someone like you to whine about strawmanning. I guess you don't get mocking hyperbole. Too bad. The bottom line is, you're switching between talking about sub-saharan affinities and being subsaharan rather conveniently in this thread.

You really are really not reading the links, are you: linka These studies used the same data set and the same methods as the faulty Arnaiz-Villena paper.

The fact that Arnaiz's technique is continued to be used and built upon by other researchers to this very day shows that his technique has considerable merit, despite the cries of some butthurt Eurocentric.

Whether his technique is being built upon is irrelevant to the fact that his study was flawed, and that the other papers you cited used his flawed data. And you can quit with the hypocritical accusations of ethnocentrism, already.

HA HA HA HA HA!! "In the main, though not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants." Exactly. NO ONE claims that they're WHOLLY descendants of the pre-neolithic inhabitanst, but being IN THE MAIN descended from the pre-neolithic inhabitants means just that

You dumb fuck, the quote is saying that modern Egyptians are the main descendants of the ancient Egyptians, WHO IN THE FUCK DISPUTES THAT FACT? The reason why they are not "wholly" the descendants as proven time and time again in this thread is because the fact that they are also the descendants numerous foreign invaders from various regions across the Mediterranean and Europe. Your strawman arguments just show how much your heart is vested into believing a fucking Eurocentric myth, it's quite honestly pathetic.

The only pathetic ethnocentrist around here is you. See, if you'll notice, no one is denying that Egyptians are also descendants of numerous invaders. But in the main, they're the descendants of the ancient population. That is what the quote says. Moreover, I must say that I find it hilarious that you accuse me of being "Eurocentric" simply because I don't think the Egyptians were black Africans when I've already stated that I hold that they were most probably indigenous. But hey, I guess that to an extremist, everyone who disagrees must hold the opposite extreme, right?

that for the post part, they're the same population! And you just posted a quote that corroborates this.

No you dumb fuck this proves that "continuity" has been maintained since that period. Do you need another fucking schooling on what "continuity" means again?

Saying that they're in the main the descendants of the ancient Egyptians means rather more than merely "continuity has been maintained". Though of course, it means that too.

No one is claiming that they're the spitting image of the ancients either. If they're IN THE MAIN descendants of the ancients, why should they look more like levantines and north Africans than Ethiopians? Make sense.

Ok your deliberate miswording of what that quotation says is what appears to be driving your desperate stawman argument, so let's nip this shit in the bud by reposting the statement:

The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now speak Arabic in the main but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic, and current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants..."Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

In the main means exactly what it means to anyone with common sense that the populations in Egypt while enduring multiple foreign invasions has retained large-sizable amounts of their original more southerly African ancestry. As you probably well know this does not mean that they are the population that best resembles what the ancient Egyptians looked like, and in fact in this same fucking study Keita states that modern urban northern Egyptians are not a good representative for what their original Egyptian ancestors looked like (black Africans):

Yes indeed: "in the main" does mean exactly what it means to anyone with common sense. But emphasizing the invaders at the expense of the natives when the phrase "in the main" was used about the relationship of the modern Egyptians with the latter rather than the former is not common sense.

"However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results." (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

and

"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".- Keita (2005), pp. 564

Do you understand what this means? Do you need me to break the shit down any further? Are you going to continue to make weak ass strawman arguments to support moot points?

You'll notice that he's talking about northern Egypt specifically there, not the whole of modern Egypt? And that he's talking about the false impression of variability?

So commenting on the source of the immigration as being a result of the development of trade, etc. doesn't preclude pre-dynastic migration.

Once again let's walk through the relevant quotation:

This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. (Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)

The state of development was indigenous and there may have been migration from the Levant. That "POTENTIAL" migration occurred after the establishment of Dynastic culture. The potential migration occurred after Dynastic culture was established. Why would the evidence and subsequently a discussion of Pre-Dynastic migration from the Levant be omitted by the author, if there was any? Why is the only potential evidence presented suggesting a migration from the Levant into Egypt only noted to have came later? You are desperately holding on to speculative theories, through the twisting the words of numerous studies. What is the motive for your dumbassness?

Are you actually attempting to be as retarded as possible or do you not understand the difference between "particularly" and "exclusively"?

And once again, you're implying that I have claimed major population displacement when I've said no such thing. And incidentally, are you talking about this paper from Ricaut?

No you dumb fuck I know that you're not claiming a major population replacement. What you're trying to prove based on your refuted interpretation of Irish is that the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians remained constant, despite significant in migration from the Mediterranean. The studies that I've just posted clearly tells you what is really meant by "continuity" and that this does not mean that there was not a shift in biological affinities in Egypt across different time periods. In fact it proves that there was a shift in biological affinities from that of Black Africans to the south, to that which began to inch towards Mediterranean population to the north and east by Late period times.

Obviously, there was significant migration from the Mediterranean, no one denies this. This is particularly true with regards to upper Egypt and the cities. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the modern Egyptians (particularly rural Egyptians) are ethnically similar to the ancients.

(three ancient Egyptian/Sudanese populations from Naqada, Gizeh, and Kerma as well as the Cypriot/Turkish, Greek, and Sagalassian populations) and the Scandinavian sample; the second subgroup includes the other West Eurasian populations..............So... sub-Saharan =/= Egyptian.

You do realize that Kerma is ancient Nubia/Sudanese? You also realize that out linear in that primary cluster of Egyptians and Sudanese Nubians, is the Late Periods Giza Sample? The primary cluster is between Pre-Dynastic Egypt (Naqada) and Kerma (Nubia). Do you even understand what you are trying argue? Once again don't bring RR's typological misinterpretations is select studies outside of his domain, BECAUSE HE WON'T EVEN DO THAT IS DAMN SELF...HE KNOWS BETTER.

Oh shut the fuck up about Racial Reality, already. Petulant tool.

Too bad Irish (2005) disagrees with you. So the finding is hardly "consistent".

Once again dumb fuck (your new name) your fundamental misunderstanding of the Irish's use the term "continuity" and your persistence on relying on that misinterpretation in the mist of more qualified individuals (scholars) providing an in dept interpretation of Egyptian population history (taking into account Irish 2006 and others) shows just how fucking desperate you are to make a point that you can't back. In essence YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT IRISH 2006 admit that you are or just shut the fuck up about it.

You are full of shit: he speaks of more than merely continuity. He says the following: "Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first? .... These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements."

YOU ARE LYING

What, is that it? A single paragraph in a lengthy tribute to Hawass?

In it contains the fact that there is common knowledge amongst Egyptian, as to where the ancient Egyptians came from and what they looked like. It proves that they know (even though some might not be comfortable with outright saying it) that they were black Africans from further south.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtWLry9o70c

Listen to this Egyptian historian. I guess she must be another "Afrocentric" Egyptian, because she states that the early ancient Egyptians looked like Horn Africans (Somalis). Notice no mention of Levantine admxiture, despite the fact that she appears to be affected by it. Why can she (an Egyptian historian with actual vested) admit this truth, but some Europeans and Euro Americans (especially the latter) feel so butt hurt over these facts? Is it that damn symbolic and detrimental to your belief system (what ever that might be) that you cannot accept this fact:

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

Yeah, apart from the fact that 90% of the UNESCO synopsium in Cairo rejected the idea that the ancient Egyptians were "black" and supported the idea that they were much the same as the modern population. Say, do you understand that the fact that they were colonized from the Sahara to the west and from the south doesn't mean that they look like the modern Sudanese? Or that there is high variability in African populations?

They were black Africans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLoDgDE83rs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4jgrFFjwjQ

You'll notice that you've changed your tune considerably since the start of the thread with regards to out-and-out stating that the Egyptians were black Africans, as Captain Chewbacca pointed out earlier.

Scholars have finally come to recognize that they were and yet.................we still have people like you

Isn't that adorable: more thinly veiled accusations. Do you think you're convincing anyone with crap like this?

Remember, you are what you hate.

[Big Triece]

The bottom line is, you're switching between talking about sub-saharan affinities and being subsaharan rather conveniently in this thread.

The problem is that you clearly have a fundamental lack of knowledge in regards to these studies, and to compensate for your dumbassness you must resort to logical fallacies. The populations from the Levant stretching into southeastern Europe (Anatolia, Greece, ect) have been proven to have been mixed with Sub Saharan Africans (and as a result shared some biological affinities towards Sub Saharan African populations) since the times of the Mesolithic, Neolithic and points later.

"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercenaries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occurred with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data."

""In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millennium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."


F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564

and

Whether his technique is being built upon is irrelevant to the fact that his study was flawed,

The fucking fact that his technique is still being built upon validates the use of the technique, hence minimizing the legitimacy that the technique is flawed. Furthermore, the main point of contention on that website that you linked me to, is the "off relationship" between South African populations and the Japanese. This broad relationship was explained in my earlier post, which you conveniently forgot to acknowledge.

if you'll notice, no one is denying that Egyptians are also descendants of numerous invaders. But in the main, they're the descendants of the ancient population.

Who in the fuck is denying this? How does this help your argument? How does this somehow debunk, the proven fact that the vast majority of most modern Egyptians (urban northerners, who were most affected by foreign migrations) are not the best representative for what their core indigenous Egyptian ancestors looked like? What is the reason for more southerly modern African populations (like those in the Horn) showing closest biological affinities towards the ancient Egyptians, and not their "in the main descendants". It's quite clear what this is, and it would be a lot easier for you to admit why is you'd pull your head out of your ass.

I must say that I find it hilarious that you accuse me of being "Eurocentric" simply because I don't think the Egyptians were black Africans when I've already stated that I hold that they were most probably indigenous.

Would you rather me just state that you are racially biased? Why else are you and some others so obsessed with proving that some waves of lighter skinned non Africans helped found Dynastic Egyptians culture, when you have no evidence to boot? The mere fact that you are so vehemently arguing this stance nothing more than speculation, shows that you all have your hearts vested in ideology rather than science. This is ironic because you all accused me of doing exactly that.

Saying that they're in the main the descendants of the ancient Egyptians means rather more than merely "continuity has been maintained". Though of course, it means that too.

NO FUCKING DUH SHERLOCK !!! The problem is, that you are making yourself to be mentally incapable of also understanding that this does negate the proven fact that an alternation of biological affinities had occurred during Later Dynastic times. Late Dynastic Egyptians were proven to not be a good representative for the "typical" Egyptian series, who show closest relationships with more southerly African populations.

But emphasizing the invaders at the expense of the natives when the phrase "in the main" was used about the relationship of the modern Egyptians

The "invaders" are the primary reason for the alternation of biological affinities. Do you not fucking understand, that they are the reason why ancient Egyptians went from overlapping with Nubians and Ethiopians to modern ones overlapping with Greeks?

You'll notice that he's talking about northern Egypt specifically there, not the whole of modern Egypt? And that he's talking about the false impression of variability?

Case and fucking point, modern highly admixed northern Egyptians do not closely represent their earliest Egyptian ancestors, who were black Africans. Do you know who modern upper Egyptians show closest biological affinities with:

"..collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza and dating from the 26th to the 30th Dynasties.. If, on the other hand, CRANID had used one of the Elephantine populations of the same period, the geographic association would be much more with the African groups to the south. It is dangerous to take one set of skeletons and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt." (Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Routledge: 2005, p. 55)

lets not forget about the Beja of southern Egypt:



The closest "in the main" descendants of the ancient Egyptians appear to be the more African populations along the southern boarder of Nubia.

Are you actually attempting to be as retarded as possible or do you not understand the difference between "particularly" and "exclusively"?

Your entire tooth and nail argument on about this quote is driven by nothing more than speculation, with shows your desperation to prove a moot point that you have an emotional investment in believing.

Obviously, there was significant migration from the Mediterranean, no one denies this. This is particularly true with regards to upper Egypt and the cities.

For one dumbass "upper Egypt" refers to south not the north. With that being said it is Lower Egypt and primarily it's cities which have been most affected by significant migration from the Mediterranean during later Dynastic times.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that the modern Egyptians (particularly rural Egyptians) are ethnically similar to the ancients.

Attempting to present yet another weak strawman argument to knock down! No one disputes that modern Egyptians (especially those in the south) have biological resemblance to their core indigenous ancestors. What is proven however is that most modern Egyptians as a result of admixture from the Middle East and Europe have endured a continuous alteration of biological affinities which became significant during times dating back to Late Dynastic times. What you also fail to mention is the fact that modern Horn African populations routinely overlap with Pre-Dynastic Egyptians, and modern Egyptians do not:



Notice Somalia's position next to Naqada, compared to the modern Egyptian sample. Why to populations who are "in the main descendants" not group with their core indigenous ancestors, while another population from the same broad geographical region does?

"Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)

Oh shut the fuck up about Racial Reality, already. Petulant tool.

Well then stop relying on his bullshit misinterpretations of select studies.

You are full of shit: he speaks of more than merely continuity. He says the following: "Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first? .... These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements."...YOU ARE LYING

No bitch YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT! Once again, you have been presented with a more recent scholarly interpretation of Irish 2006 coupled in with other findings, which confirm that while continuity was maintained, their were biological alterations which were the result of demographic change entering the Nile. Further more the fact that Irish found that the inhabitants of Egypt from the Pre to the earliest Dynastic times, were of continuous local Northeast African origin:

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.

Once again while continuity of certain dental traits have been confirmed, it does not negate the fact that an alternation of biological affinities occurred during Late Dynastic times:

Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.

Yeah, apart from the fact that 90% of the UNESCO synopsium in Cairo rejected the idea that the ancient Egyptians were "black" and supported the idea that they were much the same as the modern population.

OK....Here in the second decade of the 20th century Egypt is finally once again being recognized as the black African civilization that it really was by mainstream scholarship. You respond with........Back in 1972 stepping off of the heels of the white supremacy era just about every white Egyptologist scuffed at the notion of a black Egypt. That makes about as much since as someone trying to disregard the current presidency of Obama by saying.....Barrack Obama is the president of the United States/In 1916 Barrack Obama would likely have been tarred and feathered for trying to run for for the oval office/ TIME AND AS A RESULT ATTITUDES FUCKING CHANGE dumb ass.

You completely fucking ignore the social-political climate and negative attitudes in regards to blacks of the fucking early 1970's and the symbolism associated with Diop and Obenga's intellectual ass whipping bestowed upon the world's leading Egyptology of the time. The whole point of "Afrocentrics" championing this story is that it proves the utter inability of Western scholars to accept what the proven facts indicate about the origins of ancient Egypt. Those same Egyptologist who almost unanimously gave those African scholars the subliminal middle finger for having the audacity to assert that such facts be acknowledged, rarely vocally disputed (let alone refuted) what Diop and Obenga were proving. One delegate even hopped out of his fucking chair and stated "even if they were black skinned, they were still white".

Say, do you understand that the fact that they were colonized from the Sahara to the west and from the south doesn't mean that they look like the modern Sudanese? Or that there is high variability in African populations?

You have the audacity to wonder why somehow would accuse you and people like you of having a fucking racial stake in this debate. The quotation states that the ancient Egyptians had closest biological affinity to the populations of the Sahara and more southerly areas. This definition from the same fucking source, is what has historically defined what we in the Western society consider to be black Africans. In essence the quote is saying that the ancient Egyptians were generally black Africans.

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

You are fighting tooth and nail against this with no real fucking evidence. You lost this debate GTFOH!

[Lord Zentei]

The problem is that you clearly have a fundamental lack of knowledge in regards to these studies, and to compensate for your dumbassness you must resort to logical fallacies. The populations from the Levant stretching into southeastern Europe (Anatolia, Greece, ect) have been proven to have been mixed with Sub Saharan Africans (and as a result shared some biological affinities towards Sub Saharan African populations) since the times of the Mesolithic, Neolithic and points later.

Just wow. You raised this issue because of your claim that the Mediterranean populations in general showed sub-Saharan affinities, and now you're talking about the Levantines showing some mixture with sub-Saharans, and Greeks showing some mixture with Levantines?

"Has been hypothesized" ... "Finds some support" LOL.

The fucking fact that his technique is still being built upon validates the use of the technique, hence minimizing the legitimacy that the technique is flawed. Furthermore, the main point of contention on that website that you linked me to, is the "off relationship" between South African populations and the Japanese. This broad relationship was explained in my earlier post, which you conveniently forgot to acknowledge.

That is a flat out lie: I have already posted several points that were raised on that page. And the fact that a technique is being built upon does not validate a flawed study, what a ridiculous claim.

Who in the fuck is denying this? How does this help your argument? How does this somehow debunk, the proven fact that the vast majority of most modern Egyptians (urban northerners, who were most affected by foreign migrations) are not the best representative for what their core indigenous Egyptian ancestors looked like? What is the reason for more southerly modern African populations (like those in the Horn) showing closest biological affinities towards the ancient Egyptians, and not their "in the main descendants". It's quite clear what this is, and it would be a lot easier for you to admit why is you'd pull your head out of your ass.

What, so Mediterranean alleles are dominant now?

Would you rather me just state that you are racially biased? Why else are you and some others so obsessed with proving that some waves of lighter skinned non Africans helped found Dynastic Egyptians culture, when you have no evidence to boot? The mere fact that you are so vehemently arguing this stance nothing more than speculation, shows that you all have your hearts vested in ideology rather than science. This is ironic because you all accused me of doing exactly that.

You are racially biased. You are a hypocrite. You are desperate to portray those who disagree with you as such. Moreover, you don't get that I am not trying to "prove" anything. What I am doing is rejecting your interpretation of what you're presenting.

NO FUCKING DUH SHERLOCK !!! The problem is, that you are making yourself to be mentally incapable of also understanding that this does negate the proven fact that an alternation of biological affinities had occurred during Later Dynastic times. Late Dynastic Egyptians were proven to not be a good representative for the "typical" Egyptian series, who show closest relationships with more southerly African populations.


The "invaders" are the primary reason for the alternation of biological affinities. Do you not fucking understand, that they are the reason why ancient Egyptians went from overlapping with Nubians and Ethiopians to modern ones overlapping with Greeks?

Uh-huh...

"The biological characteristics of modern Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting their geographic location between sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA, blood groups, serum proteins and genetic disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999). They can also be expressed in phenotypic characteristics that can be identified in teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992; Keita 1996). These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, Modern Egyptians resemble Sub-Saharan Africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995)."

-- 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

Yeah. I guess that modern Egyptians are "black African" too.

Case and fucking point, modern highly admixed northern Egyptians do not closely represent their earliest Egyptian ancestors, who were black Africans. Do you know who modern upper Egyptians show closest biological affinities with:

<SNIP>

The closest "in the main" descendants of the ancient Egyptians appear to be the more African populations along the southern boarder of Nubia.

You mean the Fellahin:

Your entire tooth and nail argument on about this quote is driven by nothing more than speculation, with shows your desperation to prove a moot point that you have an emotional investment in believing.

So, now you're simply resorting to ignoring things I've posted.

For one dumbass "upper Egypt" refers to south not the north. With that being said it is Lower Egypt and primarily it's cities which have been most affected by significant migration from the Mediterranean during later Dynastic times.

I meant lower Egypt, obviously. And I know that it's the cities which have been most affected I said as much. So, you're presumably agreeing with the point, then.

Attempting to present yet another weak strawman argument to knock down! No one disputes that modern Egyptians (especially those in the south) have biological resemblance to their core indigenous ancestors.

CONCESSION ACCEPTED

<SNIP BULLFUCKERY>

Big Triece, you're a boring little fucker, and you're repeating your fucking self. Kindly GTFO.

[Big Triece]

Just wow.

The only wow is how each of your replies just becomes shorter and shorter as your waning arguments are being dissected point by point. It about three more exchanges I predict that you will resort to nothing more than tit for tat, but then again I haven't read through this entire reply yet either

You raised this issue because of your claim that the Mediterranean populations in general showed sub-Saharan affinities, and now you're talking about the Levantines showing some mixture with sub-Saharans, and Greeks showing some mixture with Levantines?

.

Do you know where the Levant is in relation to Africa and Europe? It is the fucking corridor to connecting both continents. The Sub Saharan African affinities of the Mushabi were directly carried to what region next.....THE FUCKING LEVANT. These African migrants, fused with the local population to become what we now recognize as the Natufanians. Do you even know who the Natufanians were? Do you know where the migrated to, and what happened as a result of that migration? Why are you attempting to debate somehow on this topic, when you have fundamental lack of knowledge of every relevant aspect of this topic?

"Has been hypothesized" ... "Finds some support" LOL.

Selective illiteracy is something else that you seem to suffer from:

F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-56

This study has a summarization of what different lines of evidence which have been built upon for decades indicate about the subject of these migrations. You for whatever reason chose to ignore the citation given lending the support for this.

What, so Mediterranean alleles are dominant now?

It is highly dependent on which samples are used. In most Y-DNA analysis I've came across the predominant haplogroups for modern northern Egyptians are Eurasian, though haplogroup E constitutes the largest single marker.

You are racially biased. You are a hypocrite.

How am I? I gave specific examples showing how ]you all's obvious racial biased plays a huge part in the drive to make these moot ass arguments. Every single argument that I've made in this thread, I have backed by numerous studies who's conclusions for the most part are not highly dependent on individual interpretations of the data. In other words I let the evidence that I present speak for itself.

Moreover, you don't get that I am not trying to "prove" anything. What I am doing is rejecting your interpretation of what you're presenting.

Bitch yes the fuck you are trying to prove something by the dismal presence in this thread. That being that Egypt owes its origins partially to a lighter skinned less African population, as the result of some unsupported migration of said populations into regions where the proto Egyptians are proven to have come from. In one instance you want to hold on to some theory that a wave of Levantine populations had a large presence in the Nile during Pre-Dynastic times. That didn't work out so well, so you then tried to baselessly argue that the NILOTES of the Sahara who constituted the second permanent settlement on the Nile, were somehow a mixed Northwest African type. What purpose does it serve people who think like you that a light skinned non African element helped people Pre-Dynastic Egypt? Why do you feel that you have some sort of duty to stubbornly reject my well supported argument on the biological and cultural origins of ancient Egypt? Who are you are you protecting and from what you protecting them from? Is it that fucking serious, that you're willing to endure an painful intellectual ass beating just to say that you road with the tide of ignorance (people who lack knowledge and often oppose accepting new information)?

Uh-huh...

"The biological characteristics of modern Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting their geographic location between sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA, blood groups, serum proteins and genetic disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999). They can also be expressed in phenotypic characteristics that can be identified in teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992; Keita 1996). These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, Modern Egyptians resemble Sub-Saharan Africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995)."-- 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

Yeah. I guess that modern Egyptians are "black African" too.

Modern Egyptians are a mixed population. Populations who are mixed share biological affinities with the populations whom they are mixed with. The largest genetic component of modern Egypt (even in northern Egypt) is from Sub Saharan Africa. Therefore it should come to no surprise that they still would retain some affinities towards more southerly African populations. None the less as a whole (depending on which samples are used) most modern Egyptians share closest biological affinities towards Mediterranean populations, both skeletal and genetically. The plot that I presented from Brace 2006 clearly shows where modern Egyptians group in relation to other neighboring populations as well as this study from Kemp:



Notice modern Egyptians at the tail end and even outside of the primary affinities box, near Middle Easterners and Greeks. Compare that to early ancient Egyptians who overlap with ancient Nubians and modern Ethiopic populations. Why is this?

You mean the Fellahin:

Who in the fuck uses a picture of one individual to characterize and entire populations? Here are more pictures of the Fellahin:

So, now you're simply resorting to ignoring things I've posted.

Every last one of your post has contained nothing more than sickening blind racially biased bullshit, which you seem to have based entirely on speculative evidence. Your arguments are bunk and everyone can see this.

So, you're presumably agreeing with the point, then.

The thing, is that the entire Nile Valley (including northern Sudan) have been affected by these migrations. The most pronounced migration of course was the Arab invasion of 700 A.D. as evident by the frequencies of genetic markers and cultural remnants. The degree of how much these populations have been affected does indeed show a North to south cline (with the north being the highest). Though there are always exceptions.

CONCESSION ACCEPTED

You are either a fucking idiot, or individual who terribly desperate holding on to his stake in the debate.

Big Triece, you're a boring little fucker, and you're repeating your fucking self. Kindly GTFO.

GO SWING ON BROOMSTICK'S BALLS WITH YOUR LIPS!

[Executor32]

Broomstick's a woman, you idiot. If you spent any time at all outside of this thread, you'd know this.

[Lord Zentei]

<SNIP BLAH BLAH BLAH>

CONCESSION ACCEPTED

You are either a fucking idiot, or individual who terribly desperate holding on to his stake in the debate.

Yeah, whatever. All I wanted to hear from you were the following two points - this:

Attempting to present yet another weak strawman argument to knock down! No one disputes that modern Egyptians (especially those in the south) have biological resemblance to their core indigenous ancestors.

And this:

You dumb fuck, the quote is saying that modern Egyptians are the main descendants of the ancient Egyptians, WHO IN THE FUCK DISPUTES THAT FACT?

See everything else in this debate is just window dressing. Of course I could quote stuff like this:

What, so Mediterranean alleles are dominant now?

It is highly dependent on which samples are used. In most Y-DNA analysis I've came across the predominant haplogroups for modern northern Egyptians are Eurasian, though haplogroup E constitutes the largest single marker.

And say something along the lines of "Heh. Naturally, and the implications escape you..."

Or I could quote little gems like this:

How am I? I gave specific examples showing how ]you all's obvious racial biased plays a huge part in the drive to make these moot ass arguments. Every single argument that I've made in this thread, I have backed by numerous studies who's conclusions for the most part are not highly dependent on individual interpretations of the data. In other words I let the evidence that I present speak for itself.

Never mind that you've not cited a single example which proves that anyone of "]you all's" around here is "racial biased". Nor are you the only one who has cited studies... moreover, numerous people have pointed out how your interpretation of the studies you cited is not as clear cut as you would like to think.

If all you're doing here any more is trying to prove that the residents of SDN are racist because they don't accept your Afrocentrist interpretation of the literature, then I daresay that you aren't exactly contributing meaningfully to this board.


EDIT:

Never mind the fact that you're IGNORING EVIDENCE. Case in point:

The thing, is that the entire Nile Valley (including northern Sudan) have been affected by these migrations. The most pronounced migration of course was the Arab invasion of 700 A.D. as evident by the frequencies of genetic markers and cultural remnants. The degree of how much these populations have been affected does indeed show a North to south cline (with the north being the highest). Though there are always exceptions.

Hello Irish (2006), and fuck off.

[Big Triece]

<SNIP BLAH BLAH BLAH>

CONCESSION ACCEPTED

You are either a fucking idiot, or individual who terribly desperate holding on to his stake in the debate.

Yeah, whatever. All I wanted to hear from you were the following two points - this:

Attempting to present yet another weak strawman argument to knock down! No one disputes that modern Egyptians (especially those in the south) have biological resemblance to their core indigenous ancestors.

And this:

You dumb fuck, the quote is saying that modern Egyptians are the main descendants of the ancient Egyptians, WHO IN THE FUCK DISPUTES THAT FACT?

See everything else in this debate is just window dressing. Of course I could quote stuff like this:

What, so Mediterranean alleles are dominant now?

It is highly dependent on which samples are used. In most Y-DNA analysis I've came across the predominant haplogroups for modern northern Egyptians are Eurasian, though haplogroup E constitutes the largest single marker.

And say something along the lines of "Heh. Naturally, and the implications escape you..."

Or I could quote little gems like this:

How am I? I gave specific examples showing how ]you all's obvious racial biased plays a huge part in the drive to make these moot ass arguments. Every single argument that I've made in this thread, I have backed by numerous studies who's conclusions for the most part are not highly dependent on individual interpretations of the data. In other words I let the evidence that I present speak for itself.

Never mind that you've not cited a single example which proves that anyone of "]you all's" around here is "racial biased". Nor are you the only one who has cited studies... moreover, numerous people have pointed out how your interpretation of the studies you cited is not as clear cut as you would like to think.

If all you're doing here any more is trying to prove that the residents of SDN are racist because they don't accept your Afrocentrist interpretation of the literature, then I daresay that you aren't exactly contributing meaningfully to this board.


EDIT:

Never mind the fact that you're IGNORING EVIDENCE. Case in point:

The thing, is that the entire Nile Valley (including northern Sudan) have been affected by these migrations. The most pronounced migration of course was the Arab invasion of 700 A.D. as evident by the frequencies of genetic markers and cultural remnants. The degree of how much these populations have been affected does indeed show a North to south cline (with the north being the highest). Though there are always exceptions.

Hello Irish (2006), and fuck off.

After deciphering the mounds of bullshit, you basically don't have shit to say

[Lord Zentei]

Apparently, you don't. So long, bitch.

[Iosef Cross]

Two commentaries:

1 - The idea that ancient egyptians looked like modern african americans is a product of american racism, since african americans were influenced by the racism of the white americans and therefore some became racist themselves. As result, since they think that race is important they try to find people in the history of Western Civilization such that they looked like African Americans, since Egypt is in Africa they think they have the best shoot there. Also they try to link the Ancient Greeks with African influences, my only say about that is that it is ridiculous to the Nth-degree.

2 - Ancient Egyptian art wasn't realistic. They weren't like the Classical Greeks who tried to represent people in the most accurate way possible. As result it is not possible to reconstruct the appearence of Ancient Egyptians by their art. However, after Egypt was hellenized the art produced in Egypt became more naturlistic, there we can see accurate representations.

Cleopatra in Egyptian representation:


Cleopatra in naturalistic (Greek) depiction:


Clearly, by the depiction in traditional egyptian style we cannot say how cleopatra looked like. This is how the Afro-centrists whish Cleopatra looked like:

Of course, she did not look like this, as evidenced in the picture above.

How about skin color? Well, the best surviving naturalistic painted representations of Egyptians dated from Ancient times are the Fayum mummy portraits, let's see how they look like?














One could argue that these represent ethnic Greeks and not Egyptians, however these pictures date after 400-500 years of Graeco-Roman influence and by that time at least some native egyptians probably managed to get enough money to hire someone to paint their mummy portraits. Anyway even the ethnic Greeks probably have some heavy measure of native egyptian admixture by that point. The lighter ones were probably of predominantly Greek descent while the darker ones were probably more Egyptian descent. However, nobody in Roman Egypt looked like Michael Jordan:



So unless the entire population of Roman Egypt had zero connection which the populations of pre-hellenistic egypt, i.e. unless the Greeks and Romans killed the entire local population and subsistituted for peoples from Greece and the Near East, the ancient egyptians did not look like modern African Americans.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick's a woman, you idiot. If you spent any time at all outside of this thread, you'd know this.

He's expressed doubt about my gender before. Also, confusion in regards to the gender of others. Rather typical of his muddled thinking.

I'd be willing to send him some used tampons or pads as proof of my femininity, except, of course, it would be a waste of menstrual fluids. And he'd probably accuse me of sending my girlfriend's or something, because we all know BT doesn't let the facts get in the way of his "facts".

I'm a little amazed this is still going on. Then again, there appears to be nothing else in BT's life. Really, he has no other posts anywhere but here?

Of course, I expect my reappearance will result in him spewing foul language and insinuation my way again - as if he's the first to ever attempt to do such a thing. It's sad he has no idea how ridiculous his tactics make him, his constant reposting of a wall of images, and his Bagdhad-Bob like insistence everyone else is losing.

Still, I suppose we're keeping him off the streets....

[D.Turtle]

Broomstick, unless you have something substantive to add, just stay out of this thread.

We know you are a woman, and Big Triece should know you are a woman, and he is an idiot if he denies that you are a woman, but you still posted nothing but a personal attack against Big Triece. This discussion is enough of a mess without adding even more personal baggage to the whole thing.

And yes, the last few posts between Big Triece and Lord Zentai descended to a similar level, but any furthering of such will not be tolerated.

This also counts for Big Triece: Any personal attacks on Broomstick will not be tolerated.

[Big Triece]

1 - The idea that ancient egyptians looked like modern african americans is a product of american racism

I don't recall anyone specifically stating that the ancient Egyptians looked like African Americans. I do however have no problem stating the fact that based on consistent results of peer reviewed analysis of their external anatomical traits that most ancient Egyptians would fit into the American (or European) category of "black" and or "Negro".

since african americans were influenced by the racism of the white americans and therefore some became racist themselves. As result, since they think that race is importantthey try to find people in the history of Western Civilization such that they looked like African Americans, since Egypt is in Africa they think they have the best shoot there. Also they try to link the Ancient Greeks with African influences, my only say about that is that it is ridiculous to the Nth-degree.

Found this relatively new youtube series on the issue of what the ancient Egyptians looked like and the racial motivations of Westernized scholars to distort this fact, as well as the origins of the ancient Greeks. This individual mixes in his own narration with relevant (and some irrelevant/funny) clips revolving around these two central ideas. Now while I don't agree with some of his comments and points aimed against whites, I do agree with the central thesis that much of what the Westernized world tends to worship (as far as ancient history and the biblical tales go) are blatant lies, which ultimately have their root in anti black African racism.











The last two videos he narrates the distortion of ancient Egyptian history. I love the snippet at the very end of the 7th video with Richard Prior and British Egyptologists in the Egyptian tomb.

2 - Ancient Egyptian art wasn't realistic.

Well then simply stick to the biological and cultural aspects of this debate, which is what this debate has for the most part been revolved around.

They weren't like the Classical Greeks who tried to represent people in the most accurate way possible. As result it is not possible to reconstruct the appearence of Ancient Egyptians by their art. However, after Egypt was hellenized the art produced in Egypt became more naturlistic, there we can see accurate representations.

How about skin color? Well, the best surviving naturalistic painted representations of Egyptians dated from Ancient times are the Fayum mummy portraits, let's see how they look like?

Here is what Keita had to say about ancient Egyptian artwork:

Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation. (S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

The artwork of real ancient Egyptians referenced by Keita:

One could argue that these represent ethnic Greeks and not Egyptians, however these pictures date after 400-500 years of Graeco-Roman influence and by that time at least some native egyptians probably managed to get enough money to hire someone to paint their mummy portraits. Anyway even the ethnic Greeks probably have some heavy measure of native egyptian admixture by that point. The lighter ones were probably of predominantly Greek descent while the darker ones were probably more Egyptian descent.

So according to you the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians is accurately portrayed by the Late Period Greco Roman Faiyum nobility?

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.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990).

-- 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

or

Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. –Zakrewski (2004) “Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania.”

In summary your assertion was a FAIL.

However, nobody in Roman Egypt looked like Michael Jordan:

And nobody native European or Middle Easterner has the facial features of the Sphinx:

So unless the entire population of Roman Egypt had zero connection which the populations of pre-hellenistic egypt i.e. unless the Greeks and Romans killed the entire local population and subsistituted for peoples from Greece and the Near East

Who in the fuck has stated any of this? Before you bombard the thread with BS please reread all of the points that have been made, as opposed to making silly straw man arguments.

the ancient egyptians did not look like modern African Americans.

How about this Egyptian God


James Toney looks like a Candidate


or

Djoser and 50 cent?


Of course the lone black guy stands out:


Let's not forget that the ancient Egyptians (particularly Upper Egyptians) did and still do have substantial ancestry with West and Central Africans (M2 lineage) which was largely a result of their common origins in the ancient Sahara:

[Lord Zentei]

Found this relatively new youtube series on the issue of what the ancient Egyptians looked like and the racial motivations of Westernized scholars to distort this fact, as well as the origins of the ancient Greeks. This individual mixes in his own narration with relevant (and some irrelevant/funny) clips revolving around these two central ideas. Now while I don't agree with some of his comments and points aimed against whites, I do agree with the central thesis that much of what the Westernized world tends to worship (as far as ancient history and the biblical tales go) are blatant lies, which ultimately have their root in anti black African racism.

Yeah, that's been your beef all along, despite your hypocritical attempts to appear reasonable at the start of this thread. You're just desperate to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a racist so you can bask in the glory of a civilization which you've got no claim to kinship with, beyond belonging to humanity.

So, since you've crawled back from under your bridge, perhaps you'll now address my post with something more than an insipid one-liner?