Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[cosmicalstorm]

This has got to be the most meaningless debate I've seen on this board in a very long time. Did you have fun pursuing this matter for six months, Big Triece?

[Terralthra]

Ok I'll use another color. In the meantime if you or anyone else is having trouble reading that brightly colored font then just highlight the quote to give it a white background with a blue font.

I read the forums on a Kindle and a Smartphone, you arrogant fuck. Not everyone has the option. If you need to emphasize something, try bold, italics, underline, or size.

Boy oh boy the money I would pay for a PC that allows me to snatch a bitch up through the monitor!

So, when called on your bullshit, your response is Internet Tough Guy, hur hur hur? I'm curious if that's how you deal with this sort of thing in real life:

Big Triece: SOMETHING SOMETHING ABOUT BLACK EGYPTIANS
Others: Hey, how about you not shout, it's really irritating?
Big Triece: HOW ABOUT YOU TURN DOWN YOUR HEARING AIDS
Others: Yeah, um, we don't have hearing aids.
Big Triece: IMA CUT YOU

[Simon_Jester]

Could you remind me what "Bio-Cultural" means?

Biological+Cultural= Bio-Cultural:
It is the same term that Keita uses as the name for his Cambridge lectures which were posted on the first page of this thread. Biological evidence being genetics and anthropology. Cultural evidence being a combination linguistic, archaeological, religious, and social customs.

And if the two diverge, which is more important? Is it still Bio-Cultural evidence if the Bio comes from one place and the Cultural comes from another? Or if the Bio comes from one place and the Cultural comes in a 50/50 split from two different places? Or if the Bio is thus split and the Cultural all comes from one place?

[arbitrary capitalization as in the original]

Do you think people are born with cultural templates welded into their head, so that if their ancestors come from a certain chunk of land, that means that their cultural behavior will be typical of that chunk of land, and that it reflects on that chunk of land more than any other chunk of land?

No!

OK. Then I have to ask: why is it so enormously important to yell at people about where the pre-historic ancestors of the ancient Egyptians came from? What are you trying to prove that is of enough importance to justify how worked up you get about it?

For that matter, what do you mean by "Egyptian culture was an indigenous creation?"

Egyptian culture was an indigenous product of local but various Northeast Africans. Those various populations came from both Sub Saharan East Africa and the ancient Sahara. Ancient Nubians (especially Lower Nubians) are also of the same population source, which is reinforced by the shared overlapping of biological and cultural affinities between the two adjacent civilizations.

What does "indigenous" mean? Does it simply mean that Egyptian culture was created by people who, at the time, lived in Egypt? Because that's a blinding flash of the obvious right there.

Is that all? Are you just saying that ancient Egyptian culture was created by ancient Egyptians? By the way, by "Egyptian" I mean "people who lived in Egypt," and obviously people who were related to the other people who lived nearby because that's usually how ethnicity works- you're most closely related to the ethnic groups you've lived next to for thousands of years. No surprises there.

Of course ancient Egyptian culture was invented by ancient Egyptians. Who else would have invented it, ancient Irishmen? Ancient Siberians? Ancient Chinese?

That doesn't surprise or impress anyone. You wouldn't have spent ten pages babbling about it months ago, or have started babbling about it again, if you weren't trying to prove something else, too.

So what is it?

Or do you mean something else, something more ambitious

Ambiguous? In what ways can what I am asserting become "ambiguous"? By ambiguous do you mean referring to both Nubians and Egyptians as "black Africans"?

Now, please rub the dust out of your eyes and answer the question. Is your assertion simply "Egyptian culture was mostly invented by people physically living in Egypt, and not by people who rolled in from outside and imposed it on the locals?"

Or is your assertion something else which might actually have enough significance and novelty-value to make it worth anyone else's time to pay attention to you?

that might actually explain why you feel the need to keep trumpeting how different your opinions are from those of everyone else in the world?

"Who is everyone else in the World"? You simply CANNOT be referring to mainstream academia which confirms my and Mentuhoptep's beliefs regarding the origins of ancient Egypt. Are your referencing the emotional heart ache of butt hurt Eurocentrics, Pan Arabs, who? What are people usually called who do not want to accept overwhelming irrefutable evidence confirming a position that they are simply uncomfortable with accepting? We call that act DENIAL and those people IGNORANT. Ignoring the fact that despite a politically correct face put on display that old racial prejudices and colonial minded ideas still widely exist is a major trend amongst the great majority in our society. With that said don't try to take shots at me with this shit.

What position of yours is being DENIED or IGNORED here, anyway? What are you asserting that is of such profound importance?

[Big Triece]

OK. Then I have to ask: why is it so enormously important to yell at people about where the pre-historic ancestors of the ancient Egyptians came from?

I'm not yelling at anyone. I simply asked the question why do some people vehemently deny the social implications based on the biological and cultural facts of the ancient Egyptians. By social implications I am talking about "race". Why does no one throw a bitch fit when our social customs are implied to the Nubians (when the National Geographic referred to them as black), but on the other hand will shit their pants when the same is done to the ancient Egyptians who are essentially biologically identical to the "black" Nubians.

Some folk in this thread have explicitly stated that the reason being is because we know for "certain" that the Nubians were black. The question is then asked then what do they have to say about this fact:

The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration (Hassan 1988). Biologically these people were essentially the same (Keita 1990).

or this

"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(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)

Their argument then becomes nothing more than semantics (i.e. well what is "black" yada yada yada).

What does "indigenous" mean?

Why are you asking the same fucking question over and over again when I just gave you the answer in my last post. Once again my answer to your erroneous question:

Egyptian culture was an indigenous product of local but various Northeast Africans. Those various populations came from both Sub Saharan East Africa and the ancient Sahara.

What about the this answer do you not understand?

That doesn't surprise or impress anyone. You wouldn't have spent ten pages babbling about it months ago, or have started babbling about it again, if you weren't trying to prove something else, too.

So what is it?

The question of this thread is why do some people in Western or Westernized societies so vehemently deny that ancient Egypt was of inner African (black African) origin. Of course some of you were skeptical of any legit backing for this assertion, and with that skepticism I can confidently say that I've provided a sufficient amount of evidence to prove my assertion (which was of course against the wills of many folk on this forum) as true. Proving my assertion however was what comprised the great bulk of this thread. Now some butt hurt fagots are essentially asking me why don't you just let us remain ignorant.

Is your assertion simply "Egyptian culture was mostly invented by people physically living in Egypt, and not by people who rolled in from outside and imposed it on the locals?"

Work on your fucking comprehension skills jackass! The ORIGINAL local population of Egypt and Nile Valley were Sub Saharan East Africans and Nilotic Africans from the ancient Sahara. The creation of what we now know as ancient Egypt came with their settlement on the Nile and the various cultural and religious practices that they brought with them. Once again:

Sub Saharan East Africans+ Nilotic Saharan African populations= the creation of the Egyptian civilization.

Do you need Christopher Ehret or S.O.Y. Keita to break this shit down even further for you? Let me know.

[Big Triece]

I'm curious if that's how you deal with this sort of thing in real life:

Look I don't know where you are from, but where I'm from if someone came to another person with that bullshit then it will HAVE to get serious....LUMPY HEAD SERIOUS!!

Big Triece: IMA CUT YOU

Not worth the charge! I'll probably just slap the spit out of the bitch's mouth.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I'm curious if that's how you deal with this sort of thing in real life:

Look I don't know where you are from, but where I'm from if someone came to another person with that bullshit then it will HAVE to get serious....LUMPY HEAD SERIOUS!!

If true and not just embarrassing wankery on your part (don't give a fuck either way) then wherever you're from is a shitty place full of shitty people who need to do things differently. Appealing to your local traditions, or the purported reputation of them, proves little other than the fact that you aren't capable of carrying on a debate at the scholarly level and will revert to skid row barbarism out of exasperation and witlessness when the going gets tough.

[Terralthra]

I'm curious if that's how you deal with this sort of thing in real life:

Look I don't know where you are from, but where I'm from if someone came to another person with that bullshit then it will HAVE to get serious....LUMPY HEAD SERIOUS!!

Big Triece: IMA CUT YOU

Not worth the charge! I'll probably just slap the spit out of the bitch's mouth.

I can't tell if you think this is funny, or if you think this is serious. In either case, it's pathetic.

[Simon_Jester]

OK. Then I have to ask: why is it so enormously important to yell at people about where the pre-historic ancestors of the ancient Egyptians came from?

I'm not yelling at anyone.

Yes you are. You capitalize, you boldface, you fantasize about snatching up bitches.

It's pathetic. Your "short-tempered thug" impersonation isn't even slightly convincing, and no one would respect you if it was, because you're squalling in impotent fury from hundreds of miles away.

Thinking with your muscles works better when you have muscles available to think with. My advice is to show off your weakness and folly somewhere closer to home, where you may actually have to deal with the consequences rather than pretending they don't exist.

I simply asked the question why do some people vehemently deny the social implications based on the biological and cultural facts of the ancient Egyptians. By social implications I am talking about "race". Why does no one throw a bitch fit when our social customs are implied to the Nubians (when the National Geographic referred to them as black), but on the other hand will shit their pants when the same is done to the ancient Egyptians who are essentially biologically identical to the "black" Nubians.

I have not seen any shitting of pants. As far as I can tell, you're arguing with fake straw versions of the people here, or with some sort of terrible Dragon of Racism that exists only in your own mind.

What does "indigenous" mean?

Why are you asking the same fucking question over and over again when I just gave you the answer in my last post. Once again my answer to your erroneous question:

Egyptian culture was an indigenous product of local but various Northeast Africans. Those various populations came from both Sub Saharan East Africa and the ancient Sahara.

What about the this answer do you not understand?

That is not a definition of "indigenous." You are not answering the question, which is why I am asking it over and over.

See, normal people think "indigenous" means "comes from the place where we find it." So yeah, ancient Egyptian culture was mostly invented by ancient Egyptians, not ancient Chinese or Irishmen or Siberians. So what?

The only way that the fuss you kick up over this makes sense is if by "indigenous" you mean something a lot bigger than what you have so far claimed the ability to prove. You hinted at this big unproved idea by going on about how the Yoruba religion descends from Egypt or something like that, in my opinion. But you've never come out and said it.

So I'm trying to get you to say it. What is your point, really?

That doesn't surprise or impress anyone. You wouldn't have spent ten pages babbling about it months ago, or have started babbling about it again, if you weren't trying to prove something else, too.

So what is it?

The question of this thread is why do some people in Western or Westernized societies so vehemently deny that ancient Egypt was of inner African (black African) origin.

Your idea of "black African" is screwy, because it doesn't allow for shifts over time and place. Africa is large, and lumping together all the people in sub-Saharan Africa as one "black" race is like lumping together Chinese people and Indians into one "Asian" race. It ignores so much culture

Were ancient Egyptians related to the people who lived in what is now the Sudan? You'd expect them to be, since that's how ethnicity normally works- you're related to the neighbors. Were ancient Egyptians related to people then living in what is now Nigeria or Zimbabwe? Probably not, for the same reasons they weren't really related to the people living off in what is now Spain or Afghanistan. Those places are far away.

"Black African" seems to have some special, mystical significance to you that it doesn't have to me. I don't try to say that the Iron Age Vikings and the Bronze Age Greeks were basically the same by virtue of living on the same continent, or because they were both "white;" the cultures had little or nothing in common, except possibly a passion for rowing.

But it seems like you want to say that the Bronze Age Egyptians have something significant in common with the Iron Age Bantu, by virtue of living on the same continent.

So it seems to me that your assertion is really a bit more big and ambitious than just "ancient Egyptians were related to ancient Sudanese." You keep throwing stuff in there like "ancient Egyptians were DARK DARK DARK," as if this were really important- I don't have a fetish about the skin color of people five thousand years dead; why do you? And stuff like "oh, and Yoruba culture is descended from ancient Egypt because we found a statue of a dwarf god with a skull on a necklace somewhere in west Africa."

There are hints here that you have an agenda which is much larger than what you now claim you are trying to prove. So what is it?

Is your assertion simply "Egyptian culture was mostly invented by people physically living in Egypt, and not by people who rolled in from outside and imposed it on the locals?"

Work on your fucking comprehension skills jackass! The ORIGINAL local population of Egypt and Nile Valley were Sub Saharan East Africans and Nilotic Africans from the ancient Sahara. The creation of what we now know as ancient Egypt came with their settlement on the Nile and the various cultural and religious practices that they brought with them. Once again:

Sub Saharan East Africans+ Nilotic Saharan African populations= the creation of the Egyptian civilization.

OK, so what? Is that all? Is your argument just "the people who lived in ancient Egypt are descended from people who lived in other places nearby?" Because that's another "no, duh" claim. Where do you think I expected the ancient Egyptians to have moved there from, Outer Mongolia?

What's the point of all this?

[Spoonist]

@Simon Jester
You can get what bigT is arguing against by reversing polarity of his counters. Like this:
"Contrary to popular myth the roots of ancient Egypt are essentially seen as an extension of East African and Saharan communities according to mainstream Bio-Cultural evidence. "
His view here is that the popular opinion is that ancient egypt is NOT of east african and saharan roots. (and thus SDN by implication since he reuses the same vs arguments towards SDN)...
or you could simply go to the OP for where his versus argument comes from.


Lets see the progression of statements:
--Page 11
"Egyptian culture was an indigenous product of local but various Northeast Africans. Those various populations came from both Sub Saharan East Africa and the ancient Sahara."
--Page 10
"Notice the most ancestral population of ancient Egypt according to genetic evidence is from Sub Saharan East Africa and the other contributions came later."
--Page 8
"Dark skin that is accompanied with African ancestry is what has ALWAYS, been considered "black" in one of the handful of nations that uses the term regularly. The southern Egyptian man was dark skinned, much darker than say:
The woman who is considered by many to be the mother of the Civil Rights movements: [pic of Rosa Parks]"
--Page 6
"Why can't you just be content with the proven statement that the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous "dark skinned" African population? I for one am content with that statement regardless of the skin tone variance in indigenous tropical African populations being taken into account. YOU on the other hand appear to be trying to stay as far away from a very dark skin tone as you possibly fucking can. In the email exchange between Keita and Mentuhotep, and I believe even in the Cambridge lecture Keita specifically stated that he cannot state which skin tone that the ancient Egyptians had empirically, though in his email exchange he did state that the Upper Egyptian/Lower Nubian (Sudanese) skin tone was likely the general skin tone through the country."
--Page 5
"Then I'm constantly hearing this bs about a "hidden agenda" that I suppositely have. Let me set this straight I am not nor have a ever been a fucking coward, likewise I NEVER hid my beliefs about the subject from a single damn one of you. My stance once again:
The early ancient Egyptians were an indigneous Northeast African population, who were most closely related Bio-Culturally to more southerly Northeast African populations both ancient and modern. This ancient African populations was proven (via the ecological principals of limb proportions) to be a dark skinned population like other super tropically adapted African populations. Dark skinned Africans are considered "black" where I'm from, so the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black". Melanin dosage testing also corresponds with the ancient Egyptians being dark skinned like other dark skinned African populations to the south of them. "
"No one ever insinuated that Northeast Africans who have a lighter skin variance are somehow not African. What should be noted however are that some populations do have signifigant admixture from the Near East which can and has altered some of their appearances. It should also be noted that such populations like modern Lower Nubians who are signifigantly admixed with haplogroup J do not group as closely to the ancient Egyptians as modern Somalis whom are absence of foreign admixture. "
--Page 4
"I just find it strange that someone always seems to have some sort of quarrel with EVERY SINGLE type of evidence that havs been presented in this thread to sugguest that the ancient Egyptians came from and resembled African populations to the south of them. It appears to be so much scruntiny involved in relying on what ever piece of evidence has been presented UNTIL someone else finds what they perceive as a counter measure with that same type of evidence.
...
It's apparent that most if not all of you have a problem with accepting the fact that the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous "dark skinned" Northeast African population. None of you have presented evidence to convince anyone else otherwise, yet seem Hell bent on defying what the evidence that has been presented is pointing to. Why is this?"
--Page 3
"I also notice that some of you all seem to be trying to fight tooth and nail against the fact that the ancient Egyptians were dark skinned Africans. "
"What I find ironic about this question that you're posing is that most (if not all) of you seem to be in agreement or either have nothing of scholarly equivalence to dispute the fact that ancient Egypt was an indigenous product of inner African origins. What seems to be in conflict are the implications of "inner Africa" being equated with "black", thus equating early ancient Egypt as "black". Is all of Africa "black"(?), NO. The collective evidence however points to Africans from "black Africa" and being "black Africans" laying the foundations of Egypt. This obviously strikes a nerve with a lot of people, for what reason (?) especially for those who live in America or the Westenize world in general who use or hear racial terminology on a daily basis? That's the question that the OP is asking."

"Regardless of indigenous skin tone variation throughout the continent the fact is the ancient Egyptians in general were dark skinned Africans. If by attributing "one color" you mean the social implications of the concept of race, then that is subjective according to the general criteria of a particular society (if they even have a criteria for such categorizations).
On the other hand if you are arguing that the variation of brown and black skin tone that was likely present in Egypt like the rest of Africa (not a "gradient") prevents the general population of early ancient Egypt from falling into such a social categorization then I will have to kindly disagree. Below is the social definition for what we in America consider "black" or "Negro"..."

"Regardless of skin tone variation "dark skin" is the general phenotype in tropical Africa. The dark skin regardless of if it's Dinka black Nigerian brown or even San light brown is from a social Western viewpoint unhesitantly and collectively seen as "black"."
--Page 2
"Modern Egyptians as in who? The highly admixed Northern Egyptians who don't closely resemble their earliest Egyptian ancestors:"
"The migration of Africans from the south is what leads to the origins of the civilization! Without the origins of the a civilization then you have NO civilization. Without a civilization then you have legacy to pass onto mankind. You cannot just bypass the origins as insignifigant, what kind of sense does that make. "

"What do you mean? Study after study after study after study have confirmed that Upper Egyptians and Nubians were essentially same people biologically. Take my word for it that it is futile to dispute this fact. "
--Page 1
"I am asking why do some people fight tooth and nail against the undenial fact that Egypt's ORIGINS come from inner Africa? It's almost as though some people know that it is the truth, but will tap dance around stating it because of whatever social implications that THEY obviously feel that it will make."
"What does trade with foreign lands have to do with the general population of early ancient Egypt? How does trade with people in Levant negate the fact that the early ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population most closely related to African populations to the south of it? "

"This is true, but Keita does not give a specific period in Egypt's pharonic history to which the modern diversity would be seen. In that same interview with the National Geographic Keita also states that there is no evidence that Egypt's biological origins are anything other than Northeast African, which directly refutes a claim that the modern diversity was always present in Egypt. It would be silly of anyone to deny that non Africans began to integrate into Egypt throughout its history, and even small scale migration prior to the New Kingdom. "

"My opinion is that the early ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population most closely related to more southerly Northeast African populations. From the Pre-dynastic to the second intermediate period before the New Kingdom the biological evidence that I've came across shows them grouping only with African populations to the south. From the New Kingdom period onwards however major infiltration into the Nile Valley began to take place, coming from the Middle East and Europe and settling primarily in Northern Egypt. This migration has lead to a major population shift from the south to the north and signifigant geneflow from those regions into the Nile Valley, which lead to group Egyptians biologically grouping with non Africans."
--OP
"In this National Geographic documentary above ("The Real Scorpion King") this very issue is taken up in the opening scenes. With the narrator stating that early Egyptologist due to "racism" incorrectly credited an early wave of Europeans or Middle Easterners into the Nile Valley for the creation of Ancient Egypt (Dynastic race theory) and that it was indeed a product of indigneous Africans."


Then I'll just refer to myself on page 3 for what bigT really is arguing.

I think that bigT just went to la Mancha looking for windmills.

He is conflating this board with historical racism and racists he has met elsewhere IRL and on other sites. It is also obvious that he thinks that we all share the same skin-tone definitions as his other contemporary americans do. So he is conditioned by his context to percieve any arguments against what he says as racially motivated. But he has missed that none argue against Keita's published findings, but almost all argue against bigT's interpretations of those published findings.
(Yes I make a distinction between what Keita publishes and what he says at lectures, because they differ, as they do with almost all who research a mix of anthropology and archeology, see the email on p1 as an example of this).
However with that said I think that because of that bias some posters have misunderstood bigT's position as being more afrocentric than it really is. He has repeatedly acknowledged input from elsewhere and acknowledged the skintone gradient from northern to southern egypt. His only 'afrocentrist' positions is that he favors ancient nubians from the south over Amratians and Gerzeans from the west and NW as origins and that he is against the idea that modern egyptians would be a good template for ancient ones. Where he believes that modern egyptians have lighter skintones than ancient ones due to heavier migrations NE-SW than in ancient times. Those positions are not as bad as his arguments for them. They just miss the green sahara angle and what that meant for migration patterns in 10-5kBC which is understandable.

[Simon_Jester]

@Simon Jester
You can get what bigT is arguing against by reversing polarity of his counters. Like this:
"Contrary to popular myth the roots of ancient Egypt are essentially seen as an extension of East African and Saharan communities according to mainstream Bio-Cultural evidence. "

His view here is that the popular opinion is that ancient egypt is NOT of east african and saharan roots. (and thus SDN by implication since he reuses the same vs arguments towards SDN)...

Ah. So that explains why he gets so worked up and confrontational about it, despite the fact that his actual claims are this pretty obvious "no duh" stuff that I can hardly imagine anyone wanting to disagree with.

It reminds me of a guy running around in the street yelling at people and grabbing their shirts to get up in their faces and scream "The sky is BLUE! BLUE! Do you hear me? BLUUUEE, you motherfuckers!"

Although I still don't understand where he was going with a few of those tangents, like the Yoruba thing, since the Yoruba don't really have anything to do with proving ancestry of ancient Egypt.

[Spoonist]

Although I still don't understand where he was going with a few of those tangents, like the Yoruba thing, since the Yoruba don't really have anything to do with proving ancestry of ancient Egypt.

For me it was his inane line of reasoning with Iman etc and the WoI page after page with pics which again and again prove nothing but the picking bias of the poster.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, it's the stuff like that that makes me wonder what his underlying motives are. His "official" claim is so... disarmingly minor and obvious. I feel like there has to be something else to explain his raging unstable chip-on-shoulder behavior.

[Big Triece]

That is not a definition of "indigenous." You are not answering the question, which is why I am asking it over and over.

The original ancient Egyptians were a combination of various indigenous populations of Northeast Africans who settled on the Nile. Those Northeast Africans were from the ancient Saharan region and more southerly regions of Africa to the East. This is what Keita meant by:

"there is no evidence in existence to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were of anything but local origin.. local Northeast African origin"

in his interview with Nat. Geo which was posted on the first page. Do you need a more precise definition of the specific populations which the definition generally includes? Well I'll give them to you anyway:

The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East Africa, Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions.." (Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review," 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996, The University of North Carolina Press, p. 62-100)

You hinted at this big unproved idea by going on about how the Yoruba religion descends from Egypt or something like that, in my opinion. But you've never come out and said it.

It was THANAS who even brought West African into this discussion. In his juvenile attempt to patronize the reasons of why I care to inform misinformed people about the African origins of ancient Egypt he felt the need to "hint" at the notion that a person of West African descent should not care about the history, culture in that corner of Africa. He justified his bullshit logic with the false idea that ancient Egypt and West Africa had nothing in common culturally. I PROVED HIM WRONG (by way of linguistic studies, religious aspects, artwork, and ancient African oral tradition). Does that offend you and if so why?

What is your point, really?

My point is that the original ancient Egyptians were "BLACK BLACK BLACK" Africans who fit within the physical appearance of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, and modern Horn Africans. Sort of like how the ancient Greeks and Romans were WHITE WHITE WHITE I guess that makes me a certified racist "black supremacist" with a giant chip on my shoulder .

Your idea of "black African" is screwy, because it doesn't allow for shifts over time and place. Africa is large, and lumping together all the people in sub-Saharan Africa as one "black" race

Here is the typical Western definition of black:

Were ancient Egyptians related to people then living in what is now Nigeria or Zimbabwe? Probably not,

How do you know that? What is your motivation for stressing the idea that the ancient Egyptians had nothing in common with Africans West of the Sahara? Do you even know the population history of the ancient Sahara?

Now I am by no means saying that modern West Africans are the modern carbon copies of the ancient Egyptians, but to so baselessly deny that any sort of cultural or genetic relationship exist between two populations in Africa through any of the uncountable migrations across the continent is simply ignorant:



Yeah Just ignore the shared lineages seen across the entire fucking continent. All Africans have resided in their own corner of the continent since the beginning of time AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT DUH! Africans can row a fucking boat across the Indian ocean during Pre-historic times, but CANNOT travel from one West to East or visa versa....IMPOSSIBLE. Keep telling yourself that.

[Big Triece]

Although I still don't understand where he was going with a few of those tangents, like the Yoruba thing, since the Yoruba don't really have anything to do with proving ancestry of ancient Egypt.

Notice the idea that West Africans had anything culturally significantly in common with ancient Egypt (through any sort of interaction) makes him feel like he has his ass cheeks spread on top of a lubed down flagpole .

When I've presented the linguistic study and the cultural/religious study (the latter was removed by MODS) none of those bitches had a fucking thing to say, except but but but but.....!

[Big Triece]

But he has missed that none argue against Keita's published findings, but almost all argue against bigT's interpretations of those published findings.

The only person who in this thread (according to my recollection) who really tried to debate me on the interpretations of Keita's work (his Cambridge lecture) is Broomstick, which ultimately lead to my point being proven (which is that the ancient Egyptians most closely resembled various African populations further to the south). I pretty definite conclusion on who Keita believes most closely resembled the ancient Egyptians in terms of phenotype:

"Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans." (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)

Semantic were then thrown about just "how dark" were these tropically adapted Africans (referring to the ancient Egyptians).

(Yes I make a distinction between what Keita publishes and what he says at lectures, because they differ, as they do with almost all who research a mix of anthropology and archeology, see the email on p1 as an example of this).

Can you provide specific examples of these contradictions?

He has repeatedly acknowledged input from elsewhere and acknowledged the skintone gradient from northern to southern egypt.

Yes overtime after unification.

His only 'afrocentrist' positions is that he favors ancient nubians from the south over Amratians and Gerzeans from the west and NW as origins

The southern roots of Dynastic culture is an established fact, not an Afrocentric position:

"From Petrie onwards, it was regularly suggested that despite the evidence of Predynastic cultures, Egyptian civilization of the 1st Dynasty appeared suddenly and must therefore have been introduced by an invading foreign 'race'. Since the 1970s however, excavations at Abydos and Hierakonpolis have clearly demonstrated the indigenous, Upper Egyptian roots of early civilization in Egypt. (Ian Shaw ed. (2003) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt By Ian Shaw. Oxford University Press, page 40-63)

You will be hard pressed to find any serious Egyptologist or scholar (if any) who disputes this fact.

and that he is against the idea that modern egyptians would be a good template for ancient ones.

The question should not be about perceived ideology, but rather the quality of the evidence which is presented to support an argument. That being said what evidence supports a distinction in phenotype between early ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians?

"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)

Do most modern Egyptians (especially cosmopolitan Northern Egyptians) form a morphological cluster with "Southern/Negroid" populations to the south like the Tigray or ancient Nubians? The dendrogram below shows that they form a morphological cluster modern Greeks and southern Europeans at towards the bottom rather than with their early ancient Egyptian ancestors at the top of the dendrogram:



The reason given for this biological distinctiveness between ancient and modern Egyptians is "prolonged small scale migration". That migration from Mediterranean populations in the East even called biological distinctiveness during ancient times. Early ancient Egyptians were found to be distinct from Late Dynastic Egyptians. The fact that major and minor migration have continued to penetrate the Nile for the last two thousand years (from the Middle East and Europe) have made modern Egyptians even more biological distinct from early ancient Egyptians than Late Dynastic Egyptians.

They just miss the green sahara angle and what that meant for migration patterns in 10-5kBC which is understandable.

What does biological evidence confirm about the peoples of the ancient Sahara who went on to help populate the Nile Valley?

Bertholon and Chantre (1913) noted non- Negroid and Negroid crania in neolithic Maghreban and Carthaginian graves, with the former predominating. Daniels (1970) reported that pre- and post-Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranean. Negroid. and hybrid. Hiernaux(1975) and Henneberg et al. (1980) note early Saharan remains to be broadly Negroid (Kieta, S. (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)"

[Simon_Jester]

There are degrees of relatedness; this is an important concept.

Little Triece, if you take another glance at your own dendrogram, and read the scale on the graph (like people learn, when they pay attention in school), you'll notice that the big purple box on it is drawn in a pretty arbitrary place. Ancient Egyptians and ancient Nubians are pretty closely interrelated (sharing 97-98% of genetic markers found in the survey, it seems). But the anicent Egyptians share even more of their markers with the people of Lachish in the 8th century BC, which was part of the kingdom of Judah in ancient Israel, and the ancient Israelites of Lachish are about as close to the ancient Nubians of Meroe as the ancient Egyptians are.

Were the ancient Israelites black too?

Meanwhile, the modern black populations of Tanzania and Uganda share somewhere around 90% of their markers with all the above populations- if the Nubians and the Egyptians are second cousins (so to speak) this suggests that both are at most the fourth cousins (so to speak) of people from those regions.

Now, the people of Greece in various ancient eras are all pretty far from that baseline. Big surprise; they're on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea. But West Africans aren't even on the map. Nor, interestingly, are people from Mesopotamia or the Levant, except for Lachish. I wonder how close they'd be to the ancient Egyptians. Would they, like the Israelites, turn out to be as close to the ancient Egyptians as the ancient Nubians were, if not closer? I wonder...

And would you then follow the argument to its logical conclusion? If the ancient Egyptians were "black" for your definition of "black" because of how close they were dendrochronologically to the ancient Nubians, wouldn't that make the ancient Israelites just as "black" as the Egyptians?

[Big Triece]

Ancient Egyptians and ancient Nubians are pretty closely interrelated (sharing 97-98% of genetic markers found in the survey, it seems).

Maybe the problem lies in the fact that you don't know the locations of the cites that are sampled. If you did then you can clearly see that Pre-Dynastic Egyptians (El-Bardi, Naga Es Deir, and Naqada) and Nubians are the very top of the dendrogram are form the closest fucking relationship on the entire dendrogram.

But the anicent Egyptians share even more of their markers with the people of Lachish in the 8th century BC,

Are you fucking blind or are you just seeing what you want to see? The Lachish affinity does not start until AFTER the last New Kingdom sample is placed. Every single affinity of the Egyptians prior to the era is with Nubians and modern and late Sudanese/"Ethiopic" (as Kemp puts it) populations, you fucking dumbass!

and the ancient Israelites of Lachish are about as close to the ancient Nubians of Meroe as the ancient Egyptians are.

Confirmation that you do not even know how to read a damn dendrogram.

Meanwhile, the modern black populations of Tanzania and Uganda share somewhere around 90% of their markers with all the above populations-

Also notice that the Tanzanians and Ugandans (South-Central Africans) group closer to the ancient Egyptian cluster than the modern Cairo sample whom are actually OUTSIDE of the purple box.

But West Africans aren't even on the map. Nor, interestingly, are people from Mesopotamia or the Levant, except for Lachish. I wonder how close they'd be to the ancient Egyptians. Would they, like the Israelites, turn out to be as close to the ancient Egyptians as the ancient Nubians were, if not closer? I wonder...

No need to wonder here is a direct comparison which includes an African series (Sudanese and West African samples) and a Levantine series and guess who groups closest:

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

Another study confirming the more southerly African affinities of the ancient Egyptians and their distinction from Middle Easterners.

wouldn't that make the ancient Israelites just as "black" as the Egyptians?

The ancient Egyptians did not group with the Lachish sample until after the New Kingdom dumbass. Hint if you don't know what the locations are then google them rather than make an ass of yourself.

By the way I wonder why you chose to skip commenting on the peer reviewed study in the same post.

[Spoonist]

Yeah, it's the stuff like that that makes me wonder what his underlying motives are. His "official" claim is so... disarmingly minor and obvious. I feel like there has to be something else to explain his raging unstable chip-on-shoulder behavior.

Nah, its obviuos that he is doing it for some audience back at whatever forum/community he and the other dude comes from. See his childish behavior vs Michael Jackson, Iman, etc. Plus, his proclaiming "victory" every now and then.
Which also explains why he comes back every now and then without participating in any other parts of this forum.
As well as from where he gets the db of pics, stats etc. They probably do a "debating help" over there as well. We probably ended up on some shitlist from the last invasion, so he gets cred for "winning" sheen style vs the horrible nazi monsters over at SDN.

@bT
Why should I bother replying to you when you are not interested in the dialog at all? If we just look at the posts from me to you and the responses given I simply see no point since you do not even acknowledge that different posters have different views and instead lump them together as one big entity upon which you have projected a nemesis that does not exist. Neither do you acknowledge that this is an international board, instead you use such a limited localized vocabulary that you effectively create a language barrier where none should exist. [western != US] I'm not american, why should I have to use a limited american context instead of a scientificly established one?
Then taken into the larger context of your behavior vs everyone else it just becomes staggeringly obvious that you are looking for a fight that doesn't exist anywhere else than in your delusion of how the world works. You have ranted a huge WoI for 11 pages now, if you had the slimmest interest in the topic beyond kindergarten tantrums, you should have picked up the obvious that none is disagreeing with egyptians being of local NE african origin. None. Yet you repeat that like its some kind of news to anyone.
Now if you really had an interest in this topic you would have looked up the hints you quoted in my text and answered those things specifically instead of barfing up the same data you have already provided over and over again and which also was provided over and over again by your ilk last time on this forum and in other forums like it.

What could I possibly get out of talking more to you that I have not already gotten from reading Keita's studies and others in the field? Especially since you distort not only my view but his as well?

I'll just give one small example of what is wrong with you for your audience back home:

(Yes I make a distinction between what Keita publishes and what he says at lectures, because they differ, as they do with almost all who research a mix of anthropology and archeology, see the email on p1 as an example of this).

Can you provide specific examples of these contradictions?

Here in just one sentence you show a complete ignorance of the field and how it works. But you don't stop there, while having my direct quote in the text you still choose to distort what I said. [differ != contradiction] Then to top it off you ask for specific examples when you have one in the exact same quote.

So tell me why should I or anyone else bother with you when that is the level of discourse that you provide?

[Big Triece]

Why should I bother replying to you when you are not interested in the dialog at all?

Ninety percent (not exact) of the "dialogue" that you and some others have attempted to establish is nothing more than semantics (the typical "what is black"..."How dark were they exactly"..."Africa does not equate to black") The attempts at this "dialogue" always seems to be in response to a study that I've posted, in an attempt to avoid conceding to their conclusions and social implications (where they apply).

If we just look at the posts from me to you and the responses given I simply see no point since you do not even acknowledge that different posters have different views and instead lump them together as one big entity upon which you have projected a nemesis that does not exist.

From my own personal experience on this forum EVERY regular forum member who has participated in this thread has made an obnoxious and unnecessarily rude post towards me because they perceive ME or anyone who supports my position as "raving Afrocentric lunatics with giant chips on our shoulder". When I ask why some members and even moderators are acting like butt hurt bitches they refer to some "previous encounter" with "Afrocentrics" in another thread. So you are right I do perceive just about everyone who has lashed out with subliminal racism and those who cheer them on as shit...New Orleans post-Katrina overflowed SHIT!

[western != US] I'm not american, why should I have to use a limited american context instead of a scientificly established one?

And that's fine if you actually DON'T KNOW what these terms mean (wish I highly doubt). None the less why have people in this thread so strongly denounced the scientific evidence that the closest modern populations in terms of phenotype (and even cultural relatedness) are in the Horn Africa?

My best guess is because THEY KNOW what that fact implies in a particular social context.

than in your delusion of how the world works.

I am willing to put money on it that over 95% of the participants in this thread are from Europe or the West in general. With that being said, those folks who are from Europe and the New World (particularly North of Latin America) who are acting dumbfounded about these social "terms" (everyday talk) are full of shit!

you should have picked up the obvious that none is disagreeing with egyptians being of local NE african origin.

No! The primary goal of some folks in this thread (i.e. Simon_Jester right above) have been trying their damnedest to imply that admixture from the Middle East was present in the Nile since Pre-Dynastic times. They have been utterly refuted and one (Broomstick) has started the "How dark were they exactly" argument to give some shiver of hope that they were not as dark as those "dreadful Negroes" surrounding them. Their entire motive in this thread was to physically distinguish the ancient Egyptians from black Africans, rather or not you want to admit that or not.

in my text and answered those things specifically instead of barfing up the same data you have already provided over and over again

Yet not a single fucking person wants to admit what that "same data" indicates about the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians. You all have just been tip toeing around their indications.

I have not already gotten from reading Keita's studies and others in the field? Especially since you distort not only my view but his as well?

Questions:

1)What is Keita's baseline opinion about the origins of ancient Egypt?

2)How have I distorted his data with my opinion on the topic? Give me specific examples (with post link included) of my distortions and what you perceive as Keita's real stance. (Broomstick and I already went over this on the first few pages btw)

(Yes I make a distinction between what Keita publishes and what he says at lectures, because they differ, as they do with almost all who research a mix of anthropology and archeology, see the email on p1 as an example of this).

Can you provide specific examples of these contradictions?

Here in just one sentence you show a complete ignorance of the field and how it works. But you don't stop there, while having my direct quote in the text you still choose to distort what I said.

You stated that Keita's work differs from what is actually said out of his mouth (Cambridge lectures and National Geographic interview). I asked you to provide specific examples of what you perceive as Keita contradicting himself (which is essentially what you are saying). How in the fuck is that distorting what you're saying?

So tell me why should I or anyone else bother with you when that is the level of discourse that you provide?

If you feel that I'm not worth the time then simply stop posting, simple as that!

[Broomstick]

My goodness, I go away for the better part of a week only to find that for all the hot air and pixels expended not a damn thing has changed in this thread.

From my own personal experience on this forum EVERY regular forum member who has participated in this thread has made an obnoxious and unnecessarily rude post towards me because they perceive ME or anyone who supports my position as "raving Afrocentric lunatics with giant chips on our shoulder".

Well, yes, I personally actually DO regard you as a "raving Afrocentric". I will also defend your right to be such, even as I disagree with at least part of your point of view. If we didn't have differences of opinion SD.net would be a very boring place to hang out.

I do not, however, consider you a lunatic.

I do think you have a chip on your shoulder.

I do acknowledge that you have some education and ability to think logically. I also disagree with your interpretation of some of the data you have presented.

I also wish to point out that "rudeness" is, in fact, permitted on this board, nay, at times even encouraged. The board culture is quite rough and tumble when it comes to debate. In fact, this thread is considerably less rude than some of the epic historical arguments that have occurred here.

[western != US] I'm not american, why should I have to use a limited american context instead of a scientificly established one?

And that's fine if you actually DON'T KNOW what these terms mean (wish I highly doubt).

We have a lot of people here who aren't American and for whom English is not their first nor even second language. This is not an American forum.

Also, while we have a number of scientists and engineers here, it is generally understood that we have a lot of other people unfamiliar with the jargon of those professions, on top of English not being their first language.

It's sure helpful to your side of the debate if you make sure those reading understand what you're saying. Sometimes, that means being careful to define your terms, or being willing to clarify, even when to you the context and meaning are obvious.

They have been utterly refuted and one (Broomstick) has started the "How dark were they exactly" argument to give some shiver of hope that they were not as dark as those "dreadful Negroes" surrounding them.

That's a distorted strawman of my position and you know it. If I thought "negros" were that dreadful I'd hardly be living in a city that's 85%+ Americans of African descent, along with a hefty dose of people coming directly from Africa.

Funny, though - my neighbors and I are capable of distinguishing between and talking about differences in skin color among those of African descent and recognizing that "black Africa" is not some homogenous, monolithic army of black-skinned clones with culture set in stone by genes. Why can't you?

[Spoonist]

Ignorance is not bliss. It might feel all fuzzy and all that but its just willful stupidity.

Lets see if you can do something but barf up old data. The levant is a red herring to you and if you have read the later works of Keita you know it.

What is the significance of Amratians and Gerzeans in this context and what would be your opinion on why you ignore that issue?

How did the migration patterns look in africa during 10-5kBC and why, and what is the significance in this context?

What are the significance of the Tassili finds during 2003-2005 and how do you counter the current theories they have given rise to?

What is the significance of the Maghreb and Sahel archeological finds in 2006-2007 of cultures older than 10kBC and according to you what are their influence on proto egypt in the upper nile?

Please enlighten us pleabes we await your answers with trepidation.

[Big Triece]

What is the significance of Amratians and Gerzeans in this context and what would be your opinion on why you ignore that issue?

The phases of Naqada culture? Amratian is usually referred to as Naqada 1 culture, and Gerzeans was just further development of the former. What is your point? Do you know the Bio-Cultural affinities of these Pre-Dynastic Naqada Egyptian sites? I'll show you:

On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).

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.

The Naqada samples overlap with other African cultures and people further south.

How did the migration patterns look in africa during 10-5kBC and why, and what is the significance in this context?

As far as the Nile Valley is concerned the primary migrations occurring during this time range were from Sub Saharan East Africa and of course the ancient Sahara. But as far as the migrations across the African continent here are a few migrations that Tishkoff has noted from her 2009 study:

What are the significance of the Tassili finds during 2003-2005 and how do you counter the current theories they have given rise to?

I don't recall those 2003-05 findings can you enlighten me?

What is the significance of the Maghreb and Sahel archeological finds in 2006-2007 of cultures older than 10kBC and according to you what are their influence on proto egypt in the upper nile?

This is what I have stated throughout this entire fucking thread. The earlier peoples and cultures found throughout the Sahara help give rise to Dynastic Egyptian culture. In fact on the last page I actually posted a video by Basil Davidson in which he details some of the older findings of the ancient Sahara. Also in one of my citations on the last (Oxford encyclopedia) it details how the rock art painting found in the ancient Sahara are directly linked to the famed hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt. I am however under the impression that this region of the Sahara is severely understudied and that there was an earlier somewhat advanced civilization beneath the sifting sands that now lie there.

I also gave a citation from a study from Keita in which the crania of the regions of the Sahara specifically noted for donating peoples into the Nile were described by earlier analysis as being "broadly Negroid" in morphology. This is parallel to the fact that those ancient Saharans were Nilotic Africans (Dinka, Masai, Duer, ect). This Saharan region was also noted to have notable frequencies of the M2 lineage (found across equatorial African populations) and that M2 lineage was found in notable frequencies in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. The same citation also found that "Negroid" crania predominated the regions of Carthage (extreme northern Africa) during the Neolithic.

[Big Triece]

Well, yes, I personally actually DO regard you as a "raving Afrocentric".

First please define an "Afrocentric" and "Afrocentrism with your own definition.

I do think you have a chip on your shoulder

Why do you think this is?

I also disagree with your interpretation of some of the data you have presented.

Can you please provide specific examples in which you disagree with my interpretations of some of my sources?

I also wish to point out that "rudeness" is, in fact, permitted on this board,

That's still no excuse for some of the bullshit attitudes that forum members have displayed during their initial post in this thread. The "rudeness" was so out of line that certain moderators were reprimanded for their choice words and apologies were initially given. Why does acknowledging the fact that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans get SDN so fucking red in the face?

We have a lot of people here who aren't American and for whom English is not their first nor even second language. This is not an American forum.

Again I'm willing to bet that probably 95% of the members on this forum and particularly the participants in this thread are from the New World north of Latin America or Europe. That being said those who are acting so fucking dumbfounded and calling the social terms (everyday talk) being used "alien" are full of shit and they know it. DON'T FAKE THE DEAL JUST KEEP IT REAL!

That's a distorted strawman of my position and you know it.

Your position as I interpret it (and another) evident by pages 10 on down is that the ancient Egyptians were indeed indigenous Northeast Africans. What you however have attempted to do was argue HOW DARK WERE THEY. In an attempt to lighten up the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians you would post pictures of highly selective individual Northeast Africans (Hallie Selassie for example) and senselessly use that one individual as a physical representative of entire ethnic group in the Horn of Africa and through that basis argue that the ancient Egyptians were not dark skinned (like other tropical Africans).

If I thought "negros" were that dreadful I'd hardly be living in a city that's 85%+ Americans of African descent, along with a hefty dose of people coming directly from Africa.

Please save the I live in a predominantly black city so I can't suffer from modern racial prejudices BS. If I'm not mistaken you live in the Rust Belt, which is the most racially segregated region of the United States (even more than parts of the south) and has never been the shining beacon of racial harmony. Furthermore reasons why you might live in that city may be beyond your own control for all we know.

Now I'm not calling you a fucking Klansman or skinhead or anything like that, but anyone who performs the mental gymnastic that you have, just to avoid conceding to the social implications based on mainstream Bio-Cultural evidence regarding the ancient Egyptians most certainly has hidden motive. The likely reason is the fact that like it or not we (Americans particularly) live in a highly racialized society which is bound to lead to certain prejudices ON ALL FRONTS, it's just a fact. You just don't want to view the ancient Egyptians in the same context that you do other black Africans, you'd rather lighten their physical appearance up based on absolutely nothing.

Funny, though - my neighbors and I are capable of distinguishing between and talking about differences in skin color among those of African descent

We all know that African Americans have varying degrees of admixture between black Africans, Europeans, and Native Americans. We (African Americans) frequently acknowledge and embrace skin tone variation within our own ethnicity:


Listen to the Hook at the very beginning

"Light skinned, dark skinned," bottom right, top heavy Jeans fitting right, hair did, shawty you the best

What binds us together as a people despite those variations in skin tone and other features is are history of oppression in this country and how indiscriminate it was to ALL OF US (from Whoopi Goldberg to Alicia Keys).

and recognizing that "black Africa" is not some homogenous, monolithic army of black-skinned clones with culture set in stone by genes. Why can't you?

That is the straw man argument that you have tried to attach to me. By black Africans I am not saying that a Masai and Khoi are identical or same people, I am merely pointing out the very real and recognizable social categorization of Africans with brown and black skin. Denying that such a social category exist and is not widely used to reference African people (even amongst Africans (most often to distinguish North and Sub Saharan Africa)) shows full of shitfullness.

The social categorization of "black African" is recognized and identified in Africa everywhere from southern Egypt and Libya to Cape Town, Lagos or Addis Ababa. The primary reason is ideas of colonialism and Westernized media.

[Broomstick]

Well, yes, I personally actually DO regard you as a "raving Afrocentric".

First please define an "Afrocentric" and "Afrocentrism with your own definition.

In the context of this discussion, it would be the belief that civilization flowed wholly from Africa and did not arise elsewhere and/or the belief that Africa and things of African origin are inherently superior than those from elsewhere. Really, a flip of 19th Century Eurocentrism.

I do think you have a chip on your shoulder

Why do you think this is?

Your manner of expressing yourself.

Just to clarify - there is nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as you also abide by the rules for debate here. The problem seems to be that those with chip-equipped shoulders so often let their emotions run away with them.

I also disagree with your interpretation of some of the data you have presented.

Can you please provide specific examples in which you disagree with my interpretations of some of my sources?

I covered that pretty thoroughly much earlier in the thread when I gave my impressions of the videos you linked to. I watched them and provided fairly thorough posts, I see no need to repeat myself on those items.

I also wish to point out that "rudeness" is, in fact, permitted on this board,

That's still no excuse for some of the bullshit attitudes that forum members have displayed during their initial post in this thread. The "rudeness" was so out of line that certain moderators were reprimanded for their choice words and apologies were initially given.

And apologies were issued and behavior was changed.

Why does acknowledging the fact that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans get SDN so fucking red in the face?

As has been repeatedly stated, no one is arguing that ancient Egyptians were anything but Africans, and no one is denying them dark skin. What we're really arguing about is the particular shade of brown. To say that your opposition is claiming lily-white skin is as much as distortion as saying you're claiming they're darker than anyone else on the planet. Both are grotesque caricatures of the other side.

We have a lot of people here who aren't American and for whom English is not their first nor even second language. This is not an American forum.

Again I'm willing to bet that probably 95% of the members on this forum and particularly the participants in this thread are from the New World north of Latin America or Europe.

So?

You're moving the goalpost on that one. First it was an issue of using American vs. other English terminology, now it's a matter of "the west". It doesn't change the fact that how Europe views matters is quite different than how North America does, and that even for someone as fluent as Thanas or Edi in English, English is still not their native language, much less American English. This has, from time to time, been an issue on this board in other threads so most of us long-term members try to be sensitive to the potential for misunderstandings.

That's a distorted strawman of my position and you know it.

Your position as I interpret it (and another) evident by pages 10 on down is that the ancient Egyptians were indeed indigenous Northeast Africans. What you however have attempted to do was argue HOW DARK WERE THEY. In an attempt to lighten up the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians you would post pictures of highly selective individual Northeast Africans (Hallie Selassie for example) and senselessly use that one individual as a physical representative of entire ethnic group in the Horn of Africa and through that basis argue that the ancient Egyptians were not dark skinned (like other tropical Africans).

It's odd how you grasped the essentials of my argument yet completely blast past the conclusions. As I said, no one is arguing that in today's nomenclature the ancient Egyptians would be "white", what we are arguing about is how dark were they? Were they brown, dark brown or very dark brown? How great was the range of skin color in Ancient Egypt? Were they like, say, the Inca and rather similar in skin tone or were they more like Imperial Rome, with a wider range of hues? In either case, aside from the rare European immigrant, they were brown.

I don't know, would it be better to say "on average at least as brown as Iman or Waris Dirie, but commonly darker than those two"?

If I thought "negros" were that dreadful I'd hardly be living in a city that's 85%+ Americans of African descent, along with a hefty dose of people coming directly from Africa.

Please save the I live in a predominantly black city so I can't suffer from modern racial prejudices BS. If I'm not mistaken you live in the Rust Belt, which is the most racially segregated region of the United States (even more than parts of the south) and has never been the shining beacon of racial harmony. Furthermore reasons why you might live in that city may be beyond your own control for all we know.

On the other hand, I might have chosen to live here of my own free will.

Let me tell you my two ACTUAL reasons for living here:

First, I didn't want to pay the Bigot Tax. The exact same apartment I have now, in a mixed neighborhood, would cost $500 to 1000 more a month in rent in an all-white neighborhood. Even when I had money to burn and could easily have afforded to live in such a place I chose not to. This was baffling to many white bigots I know who happily cripple themselves financially in order to live in a "good", that is, white neighborhood. The fact that, as a side effect of that choice, I never have to have such bigots in my home or, really, in my life due to their fear of where I live is a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

Second, although I certainly look 100% European in ancestry I am not - as so many, many other people in this world I am not racially pure, I'm a mutt. And I don't keep the fact I have non-European ancestry secret even though I could. I prefer to live in a neighborhood where the neighbors won't freak out when/if they "discover" that fact. My neighbors here might not like me, but they are less likely to throw bricks through my living room window or try to burn my house down around me because grandma was Mongolian or something. I feel safer in a mixed neighborhood than one that is all one thing and not a drop of another.

As you point out, this IS a very segregated region, even today. There aren't a whole lot of truly mixed neighborhoods to live in, and most of them are predominantly brown. I can either live with the scary white bigots and racists, or I can live with a lot of brown neighbors. I'm happier with the brown neighbors.

You just don't want to view the ancient Egyptians in the same context that you do other black Africans, you'd rather lighten their physical appearance up based on absolutely nothing.

No, I question the notion they are as dark as their southern neighbors based on physical evidence as well as the fact they lived in close proximity to relatively lighter skinned people and, like the rest of humanity, Ancient Egyptians were willing to fuck with anything human and produce children.

Again, no one is denying Egyptians were among the Brown People of the World. You look at the evidence and conclude they were either the same shade as Nubians or very close, and I look at it and conclude that while some were that dark Ancient Egypt probably had a greater range of skin color than the Nubians though all of them were definitely darker skinned than, say, the Europeans or Chinese.

Although, yes, some white people get quite upset at the notion of Ancient Egyptians being very dark, you likewise seem to get quite bothered by the notion that they might not have been as dark as their southern neighbors. Why is that? Why does it upset you to think that Ancient Egyptians may have been a separate ethnicity and visually distinguishable from those immediately to the south? From my perspective it makes about as much sense as getting upset that Poles and Italians tend to look somewhat different, even if they're all (mostly) European in origin and described as "white" or "Caucasian". Italians are dark skinned on average than Poles, even if still describable as "white", and due solely to proximity to other regions, are more likely to have some African or Middle Eastern ancestry. Likewise, Poles are more likely to have some Asian in their background due to Asiatic invasions of Europe and being a little closer to Asia in general.

Thus, when looking at a map of Egypt, and the fact they are physically closer to lighter skinned people than the sub-Saharan peoples, you have to ask how much intermarriage was going on here. Why? Because people always fuck with their neighbors, in every sense of the word.

A far, far more interesting question to my mind is whether or not the Ancient Egyptians showed any bias related to ethnic traits or not. Did they care if GrandmaTye was a light-skinned Caananite or Papa Menes was originally from Kush?

Funny, though - my neighbors and I are capable of distinguishing between and talking about differences in skin color among those of African descent

We all know that African Americans have varying degrees of admixture between black Africans, Europeans, and Native Americans. We (African Americans) frequently acknowledge and embrace skin tone variation within our own ethnicity

And sometimes you don't. Terms like "paper bag party" and "high yellow" were not invented by white people. You are absolutely correct that American society has a highly corrosive legacy arising from racial bigotry. Even within the different racial groups there are subdivisions, with some black people valuing the light-skinned members of the community higher than the darker skinned ones, and among white people blond hair and blue eyes being valued above brown hair and eyes, to the extent that it can have effects on lifetime earnings and chances of being hired for a job. Thank god that really is changing, but it's an agonizingly slow process that really does take generations to truly happen.

What binds us together as a people despite those variations in skin tone and other features is are history of oppression in this country and how indiscriminate it was to ALL OF US (from Whoopi Goldberg to Alicia Keys).

Yes, African-Americans as a group were horribly oppressed for centuries, but it breaks my heart to hear the black women in my life talk about hair and skin issues. Not that I understand their issues on the same, visceral level they do, but I can hear the pain in their voices when they talk about the efforts they've gone to in order to make their natural nappy hair conform to some other ideal, or being rejected as a girl friend because their skin is too dark and the man they wanted to date insisted on a woman with lighter skin than he had. Apparently, they find the fact the current First Lady is darker skinned than her husband the President to be a major boost to their identity as dark skinned women, and yet mentioning that fact is, apparently, not always acceptable, as if not mentioning it is like not mentioning a flaw in someone, which isn't how it should be. It shouldn't matter if a woman is darker than her husband, and yet to some it does. Again, I'm the outsider looking in but if an outsider can see these things then I can only assume they loom quite large in the community where these issues come up.

By black Africans I am not saying that a Masai and Khoi are identical or same people, I am merely pointing out the very real and recognizable social categorization of Africans with brown and black skin. Denying that such a social category exist and is not widely used to reference African people (even amongst Africans (most often to distinguish North and Sub Saharan Africa)) shows full of shitfullness.

That social category is an artifact of discredited 19th Century (and somewhat earlier) world views, as we both know. It arose from the same shit that led to the fucked-up arbitrary national borders currently present in Africa imposed by colonial invaders that bear no relation to historical borders and that divide ethnic groups into separate countries, often in a detrimental manner, and impose man-made barriers that hamper people.

Imposing rigid, skin color based barriers on Africans doesn't help anyone. Africa has been a ruin in part because of divide and conquer tactics. The people of ALL Africa would be better served to recognize the enormous variations between the people of that continent and accept everyone there as equally African. How African one is should not be based on how dark one is.

Of course, people being people they have to read an agenda into questions that touch on hot buttons, and one of the hot buttons is skin color. There is some irony in that, to actual Ancient Egyptians, skin color might have been of little actual importance socially. Do we know that for sure? No, we don't, because centuries of scholarship by people to whom skin color was enormously significant has muddied the issue, and we don't have a time machine to go back and make direct observations.

The social categorization of "black African" is recognized and identified in Africa everywhere from southern Egypt and Libya to Cape Town, Lagos or Addis Ababa. The primary reason is ideas of colonialism and Westernized media.

Maybe Africa would be better served if the people of Africa were able to throw off such artificially imposed distinctions. Those were ideas imposed from the outside, and sometimes, as in South Africa, codified into a horribly crippling legal system. Certainly, prior to colonialism, Africans did not impose such sharp lines. Sure, they had tribal, ethnic, national, and religious differences and even had wars over such things, but the skin color boxes were never so tight as when the European powers colonized the continent. Maybe they should stop letting other people define them. Of course, that's much easier said than done.

[Big Triece]

In the context of this discussion, it would be the belief that civilization flowed wholly from Africa and did not arise elsewhere and/or the belief that Africa and things of African origin are inherently superior than those from elsewhere.

So how does me or anyone else stating the fact that the early ancient Egyptians were black Africans automatically equate to dismissing any sort of outside influence or the notion of black Africans as "inherently superior" to others?

The problem seems to be that those with chip-equipped shoulders so often let their emotions run away with them.

Well logically I could easily argue that based on the initial emotional outburst of certain individuals and even moderators throughout this entire discussion based on what the called "past experiences" that many on SDN have "chips on their shoulders".

And apologies were issued and behavior was changed.

Once again it got so bad that apology statements on behalf of board officials had to be given. This shows that an emotional attachment to this issue was already in place amongst many on SDN, which indicates that they had a "chip on their shoulders".

As has been repeatedly stated, no one is arguing that ancient Egyptians were anything but Africans, and no one is denying them dark skin. What we're really arguing about is the particular shade of brown.

My real problem with that was that there is no real evidence that can pinpoint any sort particular skin color in a population as a real reference point for the ancient Egyptians. What we do know for a fact is that they were tropically adapted like Africans to the south (who are generally regarded as black), which based on ecological principal indicates that a population has dark skin.

You're moving the goalpost on that one. First it was an issue of using American vs. other English terminology, now it's a matter of "the west". It doesn't change the fact that how Europe views matters is quite different than how North America does

As I've stated earlier probably 95% (if not 100%) of the participants in this thread are from the general region listed above. The point is that Americans, Canadians, and Europeans all share a common definition of what a black person or "Negro" is regardless of language differences or dialect. Therefore when people who participated in this thread are saying "well I'm not American so I don't know your terminology (the term black) means" they are LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH and they know it.

As I said, no one is arguing that in today's nomenclature the ancient Egyptians would be "white", what we are arguing about is how dark were they? Were they brown, dark brown or very dark brown? How great was the range of skin color in Ancient Egypt?

I would argue that based on the data available and presented that throughout the entire 3 thousand year period in which Dynastic Egypt flourished, the range of skin tones would have similar to that which is seen today (which is very "great"). The difference however is the frequencies of particular phenotypes would have been reversed. From the Pre-Dynastic to periods into the New Kingdom biological evidence suggest that the predominate skin tone range across the country and would have been dark and within the range of Africans further south.

I don't know, would it be better to say "on average at least as brown as Iman or Waris Dirie, but commonly darker than those two"?

My problem is that this is mere speculation. While not necessarily in disagreement with you, I think that better examples of the skin tone of the original ancient Egyptians should be compared to entire ethnic groups seen in the Horn of Africa (where the closest modern biological affinities lie) rather than individuals (models at that). According to the studies where they are sampled Tigrean and Somalis are most often described as forming overlapping phenotypes with the early ancient Egyptians.

No, I question the notion they are as dark as their southern neighbors based on physical evidence as well as the fact they lived in close proximity to relatively lighter skinned people

What physical evidence have you seen that distinguishes the ancient Egyptians from their southern neighbors? The notion that the mixed with their "relatively" lighter skinned neighbors to the East during Pre-Dynastic times is simply not indicated by biological evidence. I do not deny that admixture occurred after the establishment of the civilization, and I've even referenced a peer reviewed study which notes that "pro-longed small scale migration" from that region occurred relatively early in Egyptian history.

Again, no one is denying Egyptians were among the Brown People of the World. You look at the evidence and conclude they were either the same shade as Nubians or very close, and I look at it and conclude that while some were that dark Ancient Egypt probably had a greater range of skin color than the Nubians

It would silly for me or anyone else to deny that the ancient Egyptians only fucked people on the basis of the land that they inhabited and their skin tones, which I never have. The biological evidence however suggest that the Pre-Dynastic folks of Egypt were various Africans from the south who were fucking one another until lighter skinned folks began to settle on the Nile from the other areas which is only noted after unification.

Although, yes, some white people get quite upset at the notion of Ancient Egyptians being very dark,

Yes and many have been getting upset by and lying about this fact since the height of the promotion of white supremacy during Colonial times. Many still foam at the mouth at that idea today.

you likewise seem to get quite bothered by the notion that they might not have been as dark as their southern neighbors. Why is that?

Because the people who attempt to stress a physical distinction between the ancient Egyptians and populations further south ignore this fact:

The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration (Hassan 1988). Biologically these people were essentially the same (Keita 1990).

If biological evidence notes sameness between two population then what is the logical basis to suggest a distinction between the two populations?

Why does it upset you to think that Ancient Egyptians may have been a separate ethnicity and visually distinguishable from those immediately to the south?

It does not upset me that the ancient Egyptians were indeed their own people, but they were also Northeast Africans in their Bio-Cultural origin (which you do not dispute). I know that the ancient Egyptians were not some Pan African group of people who looked like them as their equals. The ancient Egyptians did indeed note physical differences between themselves and certain populations further south (particularly certain Nilotic populations in the Sudan), but they also depicted the people of Punt (Ethiopia/Eritrea) with the same skin tone and facial features they depicted themselves:

Thus, when looking at a map of Egypt, and the fact they are physically closer to lighter skinned people than the sub-Saharan peoples, you have to ask how much intermarriage was going on here. Why?

Biological evidence indicates significant, pro-longed migration and (in many cases) sudden invasions was the cause of this intermarriage. Most scholars note that the most drastic changes in terms of population uniformity (relatively) occurred after the New Kingdom due to foreign invasion. This is also the time in which Northern Egypt became the population center for the civilization, because that is where those populations generally settled.

A far, far more interesting question to my mind is whether or not the Ancient Egyptians showed any bias related to ethnic traits or not. Did they care if GrandmaTye was a light-skinned Caananite or Papa Menes was originally from Kush?

Here are some studies detailing the relationships between Kush and ancient Egypt:

“The ancient Egyptians referred to a region, located south of the third cataract the Nile River, in which Nubians dwelt as Kush.. Within such context, this phrase is not a racial slur. Throughout the history of ancient Egypt there were numerous, well documented instances that celebrate Nubian-Egyptian marriages. A study of these documents, particularly those dated to both the Egyptian New Kingdom (after 1550 B.C.E.) and to Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI (about 720-640 BCE), reveals that neither spouse nor any of the children of such unions suffered discrimination at the hands of the ancient Egyptians. Indeed such marriages were never an obstacle to social, economic, or political status, provided the individuals concerned conformed to generally accepted Egyptian social standards. Furthermore, at times, certain Nubian practices, such as tattooing for women, and the unisex fashion of wearing earrings, were wholeheartedly embraced by the ancient Egyptians." (Bianchi, 2004: p. 4)

and

'It is an extremely difficult task to attempt to describe the Nubians during the course of Egypt's New Kingdom, because their presence appears to have virtually evaporated from the archaeological record.. The result has been described as a wholesale Nubian assimilation into Egyptian society. This assimilation was so complete that it masked all Nubian ethnic identities insofar as archaeological remains are concerned beneath the impenetrable veneer of Egypt's material; culture.. In the Kushite Period, when Nubians ruled as Pharaohs in their own right, the material culture of Dynasty XXV (about 750-655 B.C.E.) was decidedly Egyptian in character.. Nubia's entire landscape up to the region of the Third Cataract was dotted with temples indistinguishable in style and decoration from contemporary temples erected in Egypt. The same observation obtains for the smaller number of typically Egyptian tombs in which these elite Nubian princes were interred. (Bianchi, 2004, p. 99-100)

I can't find very much on the relationships with other foreign populations.

Yes, African-Americans as a group were horribly oppressed for centuries, but it breaks my heart to hear the black women in my life talk about hair and skin issues. Not that I understand their issues on the same, visceral level they do, but I can hear the pain in their voices when they talk about the efforts they've gone to in order to make their natural nappy hair conform to some other ideal, or being rejected as a girl friend because their skin is too dark and the man they wanted to date insisted on a woman with lighter skin than he had. Apparently, they find the fact the current First Lady is darker skinned than her husband the President to be a major boost to their identity as dark skinned women, and yet mentioning that fact is, apparently, not always acceptable, as if not mentioning it is like not mentioning a flaw in someone, which isn't how it should be. It shouldn't matter if a woman is darker than her husband, and yet to some it does. Again, I'm the outsider looking in but if an outsider can see these things then I can only assume they loom quite large in the community where these issues come up.

All of which are explained below:



The scene above is from Jungle Fever, is showing African American women's perspectives about racial and colorism issues within the African American community.

That social category is an artifact of discredited 19th Century (and somewhat earlier) world views, as we both know.....Imposing rigid, skin color based barriers on Africans doesn't help anyone.

But are still none the less a very real and significant aspect of society in the West and in Africa. For centuries now people in the New World, Europe and yes Africa have been subjected to inhumane treatment and even murder as the result of being included into this social category. That is the reason why many many people feel attachment to and identify as "black African" or "Negro".

How African one is should not be based on how dark one is.

Never has been that been argued, so why even bring it up?

Maybe Africa would be better served if the people of Africa were able to throw off such artificially imposed distinctions.

North America, Latin America and Europe would be as well, but we all know that is not happening anytime soon. The concept of race despite how it came to be see and known is very much an integral part of Westernized culture.

Certainly, prior to colonialism, Africans did not impose such sharp lines.

I don't think that anyone argues that they did.

Maybe they should stop letting other people define them. Of course, that's much easier said than done.

Be that as it may, the West has defined people across the globe and many of those people have followed those definitions.