Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Big Triece]

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

OK, so then shut the fuck up!

I am disputing the claim that "African" is synonymous with "Black".

Despite the fact that some scholars (in the studies that I've cited) do in fact equate both terms, I have not done so throughout this thread. For example in the limb proportion comparison of Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians to "Africans", Europeans and Middle Easterners, the author insinuates that all African populations are tropically adapted when they are not (most Northern Africans are not). None the less the fact remains that they group with tropical populations in that respect and not those who are adapted to a sub tropical environment (the Middle East and most of North Africa).

Pointing out that the Egyptians were tropically adapted has nothing to do with anything, since "tropical adaption" is not synonymous with "negroid".

The term "negroid" is based on external anatomical traits thought to only be found in a particular populations (which is suppose to indicate close affinities across the board) is more less a social description that for the most part has lost it's value in mainstream science. Older studies for example have consistently labeled ancient Egyptians specimens as "Super Negroid" based on their limb proportions in relation to other Africans. The problem with that however is that populations who are not "African" also fall within the same range for limb proportions, such as aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, and some other southeast Asian populations. The commonality that people who as super tropically adapted in this fashion is dark skin, which is proven based on ecological principals. Therefore the ancient Egyptians would have been an indigenous "dark skinned" African populations (how dark....?), which is what most in western society would label as black.

Moreover, the human population beyond Africa are all emigrants from Africa, so merely pointing out that a group originated in Africa says nothing about their "blackness".

Once again, based on the limb proportions of early Europeans, scientist were recently able to build a reconstruction what they most likely looked like:



Ecological principal.

I also questioning the relevance of such labels as "black" and "white" to the ancient Egyptians.

Many in our society (black and white) have inquired about this for centuries, is that in itself not enough relevance? Color and race issues are an integral part of our society and we (Americans) are notorious for that. Just check the link to the video of the Manchester lecture by Egyptologist Sally-Ann Ashton



Notice at around 9 minutes she runs through what is essentially hate mail by pissed off white Americans that Cleopatra was represented as half black in a reenactment on the Discovery Channel. Proving just how relevant shit like this is to our society rather you or anyone else on this wants to admit it or not.

Nothing else. So just about all your points are pretty much irrelevant.

Bye then

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

It's obvious by now that the white and black participants in this thread have opposing views from one another of how this thread is playing out, despite the ratio. More evidence that race plays a large part in Western (particularly American) society.

[Big Triece]

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

Yes?

That's not really an issue, because all of the biological evidence presented in this thread proves that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt at it's origin were phenotypically overlapping with tropical African populations. The Egyptian phenotype has been described as generally "Somali like" which is elongated. It has also been found that the early inhabitants of the Upper Nile had a substantial population that broad in the fashion of most equatorial African populations, like Nilotics or West Africans. Shared genetic lineages have also been observed between early Upper Nile populations and West, Central (M2 lineage), and NOW (recent genetic analysis presented on the previous page) southern Africans.

[Big Triece]

double post

[Big Triece]

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

Yes!

I think we can all agree that throughout the Dynastic period, Egyptian civilization interacted heavily with the Levant and the Mediterranean civilizations,

Yes!

so saying Ancient Egypt was a purely African phenomenon is certainly a simplification.

I've always noted that small scale migration from the Levant started after unification (during the Old Kingdom). I've maintained that it was uniformly African during Pre-Dynastic times, which is something that I've backed with authoritative sources time and time again.

But the only thing Big Triece appears to be arguing here is that the seeds of dynastic Egypt, i.e. the Predynastic cultures, consisted mostly of peoples biologically connected to the southward populations in Nubia, Sudan, etc.

Yes!

Big Triece has cited some interesting studies, and I have no doubt that the Nubian inhabitants along the Nile contributed enormously to the formation of Dynastic Egypt.

Thank you!

However, input from the North can't be entirely ruled out. For example, the Harifian culture which thrived in the Sinai/Negev region north of Egypt, and probably spoke a proto-Semitic language, has well-established cultural connections with the Pre-Dynastic Faiyum culture in Lower Egypt, as can be observed by similarities in pottery and tools.

But they originated in Africa and spread into the Levant. That should speak more of the African affinities of Semitic people than the non African affinities of their ancestors. The later cultures found in Lower Egypt during Pre-Dynastic times (Faiyum Merimde) were descendants of Nillotic Africans from the Sahara and Central Africa, which is evident by their own culture and biological affinities. Those Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians however did exchange ideas from the Levant, which is evident in their pottery and farming.

But I don't think a culture is defined by biology alone.

No it's not, but as any mainstream scholar will tell you Kemet's biological and cultural foundation came from the south, though you are not disputing that fact.

[Lord Zentei]

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

That's not what the text says.

OK, so then shut the fuck up!

If you can't refrain from strawmanning other people's positions and then being all sanctimonious and cocky when they point out that you're simply lying about what they just said, I daresay that you've hardly earned the right to tell other people to shut up.

Despite the fact that some scholars (in the studies that I've cited) do in fact equate both terms, I have not done so throughout this thread. For example in the limb proportion comparison of Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians to "Africans", Europeans and Middle Easterners, the author insinuates that all African populations are tropically adapted when they are not (most Northern Africans are not). None the less the fact remains that they group with tropical populations in that respect and not those who are adapted to a sub tropical environment (the Middle East and most of North Africa).

It would be nice to see that from someone who doesn't make the claim that all Africans are tropically adapted.

The term "negroid" is based on external anatomical traits thought to only be found in a particular populations (which is suppose to indicate close affinities across the board) is more less a social description that for the most part has lost it's value in mainstream science. Older studies for example have consistently labeled ancient Egyptians specimens as "Super Negroid" based on their limb proportions in relation to other Africans. The problem with that however is that populations who are not "African" also fall within the same range for limb proportions, such as aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, and some other southeast Asian populations. The commonality that people who as super tropically adapted in this fashion is dark skin, which is proven based on ecological principals. Therefore the ancient Egyptians would have been an indigenous "dark skinned" African populations (how dark....?), which is what most in western society would label as black.

And as I pointed out, the fact that they're tropically adapted is not enough to equate the Egyptian and sub-Saharan populations, not least because of points you outline here. I really don't care much about what the common racial perception is in modern America.

Once again, based on the limb proportions of early Europeans, scientist were recently able to build a reconstruction what they most likely looked like:

That label says "35000 years ago".

Bye then

It's obvious by now that the white and black participants in this thread have opposing views from one another of how this thread is playing out, despite the ratio. More evidence that race plays a large part in Western (particularly American) society.

And it's obvious that you're not one to talk, especially about making assumptions.

----

But they originated in Africa and spread into the Levant. That should speak more of the African affinities of Semitic people than the non African affinities of their ancestors.

ALL non-African populations trace their ancestry to Africa. This point is meaningless.

[Democracy Fanboy]

A genomics company called DNATribes has recently analyzed the published genomes of King Tut's family and reported a genetic affinity with sub-Saharan Africans, especially Southern and Great Lakes Africans.

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

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

If you're curious about what exactly DNATribes does, here's their FAQ.

Admittedly DNATribes' digests are not peer-reviewed science journals, but if they can be trusted than it is almost the final nail in the coffin.

[Big Triece]

That's not what the text says.

Yet you offer no alternative interpretation of the text! "A continuous population of local origin", means that no populations from outside of Northeast Africa entered the Nile during early Dynastic times. The full study has been posted several times throughout this thread,

It would be nice to see that from someone who doesn't make the claim that all Africans are tropically adapted.

Why? You know what is meant by that statement and the finding is consistent with the finding that early Lower Egyptians were of Nilotic origins from Saharan and Central Africa, so what would change?

And as I pointed out, the fact that they're tropically adapted is not enough to equate the Egyptian and sub-Saharan populations, not least because of points you outline here.

With the exception of the Southern Coast of Africa all of Sub Saharan Africa and most of the Sahara fall with the tropical climatic zone. Those populations originated and remained in these tropical environments since the origins of humanity, which is why all form the cluster in terms of limb proportions:

"These same log shape variables were subjected to two forms of cluster analysis: neighbor-joining (NJ) and unweighted pair-group method using averages (UPGMA) tree analysis. Figure 8 is the NJ tree. It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]."--Holiday, T. (2010) Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data. AmerJrPhyAntrho, 142: 2. 287-302

Once again you have been presented with the consistent finding that the ancient Egyptians cluster biologically with tropical African populations (deemed black) and other dark skinned populations on other continents with the same adaption.

I really don't care much about what the common racial perception is in modern America.

Yet you earlier felt compelled to argue that they wouldn't belong to a particular "racial" group based on their external anatomical traits (hence YOU CARED EARLIER), and that calling grouping them into such is misleading (referring to your discrepancies of the biological evidence). The evidence now becomes overwhelming against your argument, so now you want play the social amnesia game.

That label says "35000 years ago".

What's your point? My reference to that reconstruction, was the fact that they based things such as skin color on their tropical adaption, which again based on ecological principal would make them a dark skinned population.

[Big Triece]

ALL non-African populations trace their ancestry to Africa. This point is meaningless.

You dumb fuck the time period in question is much more recent that OOA. This was also followed by another wave of tropically adapted Egyptian Africans with Sub Saharan African morphology and genetics (Mushabians) migrating through the Sinai and into the Levant mixing with the local population to become the Natufanians who are credited with spreading agriculture further north and ultimately into Europe.

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

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

""In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millennium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor." F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564

[Big Triece]

A genomics company called DNATribes has recently analyzed the published genomes of King Tut's family and reported a genetic affinity with sub-Saharan Africans, especially Southern and Great Lakes Africans.

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

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

If you're curious about what exactly DNATribes does, here's their FAQ.

Admittedly DNATribes' digests are not peer-reviewed science journals, but if they can be trusted than it is almost the final nail in the coffin.

This finding gives validation to the claims noted in the Godde 2009 study which list the observers of the cultural and archaeological evidence linking Pre -Dynastic and Neolithic Egyptian groups with populations in Southern Africa:

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.

Someone posted this map in response to the finding on another forum:



Here is a mosaic I found of some royal member of the Amarna period:



In a documentary (which also details forensic experts conclusion that the Sphinx represents a "black African) postulated that the Sphinx is much older than the Egyptian civilization and that this region of the Nile was originally inhabited by populations from southern Africa. I'll post it later if you'd like.

[Lord Zentei]

Yet you offer no alternative interpretation of the text! "A continuous population of local origin", means that no populations from outside of Northeast Africa entered the Nile during early Dynastic times. The full study has been posted several times throughout this thread,

As for what the text means, it means what it says:

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

Two differentiated African populations means exactly that, how do you go from there to claiming that they were homogenous?

And as I pointed out, the fact that they're tropically adapted is not enough to equate the Egyptian and sub-Saharan populations, not least because of points you outline here.

With the exception of the Southern Coast of Africa all of Sub Saharan Africa and most of the Sahara fall with the tropical climatic zone. Those populations originated and remained in these tropical environments since the origins of humanity, which is why all form the cluster in terms of limb proportions:

"These same log shape variables were subjected to two forms of cluster analysis: neighbor-joining (NJ) and unweighted pair-group method using averages (UPGMA) tree analysis. Figure 8 is the NJ tree. It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]."--Holiday, T. (2010) Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data. AmerJrPhyAntrho, 142: 2. 287-302

Once again you have been presented with the consistent finding that the ancient Egyptians cluster biologically with tropical African populations (deemed black) and other dark skinned populations on other continents with the same adaption.

I searched that text and came up empty handed. You need to provide links, please. And you seem insistent on equating "tropical" with "black", as if that were self-evident.

I really don't care much about what the common racial perception is in modern America.

Yet you earlier felt compelled to argue that they wouldn't belong to a particular "racial" group based on their external anatomical traits (hence YOU CARED EARLIER), and that calling grouping them into such is misleading (referring to your discrepancies of the biological evidence). The evidence now becomes overwhelming against your argument, so now you want play the social amnesia game.

What the hell are you talking about? I've pointed out for almost two pages that you've argued against a strawman, then you see fit to post this? Incidentally, I've already said that I reject the modern American idea of "black" and "white" races, that's back on the previous page. Seems to me that this issue is something that you're intent on interpreting with modern racial perspectives, and then simply assuming that anyone who questions you holds that desire too, but from an opposing camp. Cut that shit out, already.

That label says "35000 years ago".

What's your point? My reference to that reconstruction, was the fact that they based things such as skin color on their tropical adaption, which again based on ecological principal would make them a dark skinned population.

The point is, we're talking about Egypt, which dates back 7000 years.

[Democracy Fanboy]

And you seem insistent on equating "tropical" with "black", as if that were self-evident.

Why do you think tropical Africans have dark skin in the first place if it isn't an adaptation to living in a tropical latitude that receives high UV radiation?

The significance of ancient Egyptians having tropical limb proportions is that it indicates that they came to Egypt from the tropics, and the geographically most adjacent tropical region to Egypt is the Sudan. Pretty much everyone in the Sudan is dark-skinned. If the Egyptians hadn't fully lost their tropical limb proportions after their ancestors settled in Egypt, that means they didn't have enough time to adapt to the subtropical Egyptian climate and latitude, and we can infer from this that they hadn't lost too much of their ancestors' skin pigmentation either.

[Big Triece]

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

Two differentiated African populations means exactly that, how do you go from there to claiming that they were homogenous?

You obviously have reading comprehension issues as well, as I stated that in respect to the distinction of Lower and Upper Egyptians the early population was homogenous (of those same indigenous origins) compared to later groups. Do you still not understand what I'm saying with that statement or are you simply trying to obfuscate my stance?

I searched that text and came up empty handed. You need to provide links, please. And you seem insistent on equating "tropical" with "black", as if that were self-evident.

Ah, so once again a stint in your argument is pertaining to social racial labels, hmmm! None the less what in fuck else are tropically adapted AFRICANS generally labeled as in Western society if not black/negro? Better yet, what tropically adapted African population is not generally seen as black in Western society? By the way do you even know what the non African populations which are tropically adapted in this same fashion look like? To give you a hint, one group was commonly referred to as "Negritos" and others were originally thought to be recent migrants from Sub Saharan Africa, so what in the Hell do you think this indicates about the phenotypes of tropically adapted populations and thus the ancient Egyptians?

What the hell are you talking about? I've pointed out for almost two pages that you've argued against a strawman,

And I dismissed that baseless claim on your part as bullshit, so what's your point?

I've already said that I reject the modern American idea of "black" and "white" races, that's back on the previous page.

On one hand you claim that you don't acknowledge labels such as black and white. On the other you arguing that (based on discrepancies of the biological evidence presented) that the ancient Egyptians would not fit into the black category and that associating them with such is "misleading". In summary you like several other participants in this thread are FULL OF SHIT, when it comes to truth of this subject!

The point is, we're talking about Egypt, which dates back 7000 years.

The Egyptians were also tropically adapted (Their limb proportions was once even labeled (and verified) to be "Super Negroid"). This based on ecological principal would have made these indigenous tropically adapted Africans dark skinned.

[Lord Zentei]

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

Two differentiated African populations means exactly that, how do you go from there to claiming that they were homogenous?

You obviously have reading comprehension issues as well, as I stated that in respect to the distinction of Lower and Upper Egyptians the early population was homogenous (of those same indigenous origins) compared to later groups. Do you still not understand what I'm saying with that statement or are you simply trying to obfuscate my stance?

Homogenous compared to later groups... wow.

I searched that text and came up empty handed. You need to provide links, please. And you seem insistent on equating "tropical" with "black", as if that were self-evident.

Ah, so once again a stint in your argument is pertaining to social racial labels, hmmm!

None the less what in fuck else are tropically adapted AFRICANS generally labeled as in Western society if not black/negro? Better what tropically adapted African population is not generally seen as black in Western society? By the way do you even know what the non African populations which are tropically adapted in this same look like? To give you a hint, one group was commonly referred to as "Negritos" and others were originally thought to be recent migrants from Sub Saharan Africa, so what in the Hell do you think this indicates about the phenotypes of tropically adapted populations?

None in modern times, though we're not talking about a modern population. In any case... no links, then?

What the hell are you talking about? I've pointed out for almost two pages that you've argued against a strawman,

And I dismissed that baseless claim on your part as bullshit, so what's your point?

You have been arguing against a strawman, and consistently at that. Trying to reject that is meaningless.

I've already said that I reject the modern American idea of "black" and "white" races, that's back on the previous page.

On one you claim that you don't acknowledge labels such as black and white. On the other you arguing that (based on discrepancies of the biological evidence presented) that the ancient Egyptians would not fit into the black category and that associating them with such is "misleading". In summary you like several other participants in this thread are FULL OF SHIT, when it comes to truth of this subject!

You really don't understand why someone would reject the application of the "black" label to the Egyptians while simultaneously rejecting the relevance of the "black" label to ancient populations? It's pretty clear that it's you who are full of shit.

The point is, we're talking about Egypt, which dates back 7000 years.

The Egyptians were also tropically adapted (Their limb proportions was once even labeled (and verified) to be "Super Negroid"). This based on ecological principal would have made these indigenous tropically adapted Africans dark skinned.

Then perhaps you should have posted stuff about that instead of stuff regarding people from 35000 years ago.

[Democracy Fanboy]

BTW, with regards to the earlier argument about whether northern Egyptians were ever significantly admixed with Southwest Asians:



^ If ancient Lower Egyptians had tropical, African-style limb proportions different from their Southwest Asian contemporaries, that would suggest that any Southwest Asian admixture in northern Egypt was minor. I'm not against Lower Egypt having a few Asiatic settlers even in predynastic times, but they would have been in the minority relative to the native Africans, and at any rate it was Upper Egypt that laid down what we would recognize as the foundations for classical Egyptian civilization.

[Lord Zentei]

If ancient Lower Egyptians had tropical, African-style limb proportions different from their Southwest Asian contemporaries, that would suggest that any Southwest Asian admixture in northern Egypt was minor. I'm not against Lower Egypt having a few Asiatic settlers even in predynastic times, but they would have been in the minority relative to the native Africans, and at any rate it was Upper Egypt that laid down what we would recognize as the foundations for classical Egyptian civilization.

I'm not sure that anyone here is claiming that there was significant influx from Southwest Asia, though.

But I missed your post from earlier:

The significance of ancient Egyptians having tropical limb proportions is that it indicates that they came to Egypt from the tropics, and the geographically most adjacent tropical region to Egypt is the Sudan. Pretty much everyone in the Sudan is dark-skinned. If the Egyptians hadn't fully lost their tropical limb proportions after their ancestors settled in Egypt, that means they didn't have enough time to adapt to the subtropical Egyptian climate and latitude, and we can infer from this that they hadn't lost too much of their ancestors' skin pigmentation either.

That makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

[Big Triece]

Homogenous compared to later groups... wow.

The Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptians were populations of continuous local origins:

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

This means that according to biological evidence these populations were of exclusively Northeast African origins, which would make them homogenous compared to later groups. My own wording must have been opportunistic for a person such as yourself to obfuscate my overall stance, fucking pathetic.

You really don't understand why someone would reject the application of the "black" label to the Egyptians while simultaneously rejecting the relevance of the "black" label to ancient populations?

In this case, if not for racial double standard then no:



For other African civilizations like Nubia it's perfectly fine. Only when the great Kemet is called black do some people such as yourself get up arms. Of course we know that biologically the ancient Egyptians were essentially the same as the "black" Nubians, so I logically brush your bullshit away and call them black as well.

[Lord Zentei]

The Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptians were populations of continuous local origins:
<SNIP>
This means that according to biological evidence these populations were of exclusively Northeast African origins, which would make them homogenous compared to later groups. My own wording must have been opportunistic for a person such as yourself to obfuscate my overall stance, fucking pathetic.

I take it you don't get the difference between "homogenous compared to later groups" and "homogenous" as you falsely claimed earlier. And now with ad hominems too, I see. Seriously, GTFO.

You really don't understand why someone would reject the application of the "black" label to the Egyptians while simultaneously rejecting the relevance of the "black" label to ancient populations?

In this case, if not for racial double standard then no:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2 ... araohs.jpg

For other African civilizations like Nubia it's perfectly fine. Only when the great Kemet is called black do some people such as yourself get up arms. Of course we know that biologically the ancient Egyptians were essentially the same as the "black" Nubians, so I logically brush your bullshit away and call them black as well.

Racial double standard, indeed.

That's been your beef all along: you're so desperate to paint this "racial double standard" picture of all who disagree with you that it's positively oozing out of your ears.

[Democracy Fanboy]

I'm not sure that anyone here is claiming that there was significant influx from Southwest Asia, though.

Maybe not a significant influx, but I thought some people here were saying that if southern Egyptians were admixed with upriver Nubians, it would only be fair to suppose that northern Egyptians must have had some admixture with Southwest Asian neighboring them to the northeast.

That makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I may agree with Big Triece that most ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned Africans related to people whom we call "black", but I get the impression that he (she?) insists on labeling the Egyptians "black" because he wants to feel a personal connection to Egypt. Many African Diaspora people see the Egyptians and their achievements as the ultimate proof of black people's potential and a symbolic refutation of anti-black racist claims about their inferiority. If they perceive you as somehow dissociating them from Egypt, they think you're doubting black people's capacity for civilization. Also important is a certain irony in the idea of black people influencing the development of the very Western civilization that would enslave and subjugate them.

Whether or not African Diaspora people should claim any connection to Egypt in a way similar to how many Europeans celebrate Greece and Rome as the founders of their civilization is a question I'm honestly struggling to answer.

[Simon_Jester]

You're welcome.

I may agree with Big Triece that most ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned Africans related to people whom we call "black", but I get the impression that he (she?) insists on labeling the Egyptians "black" because he wants to feel a personal connection to Egypt. Many African Diaspora people see the Egyptians and their achievements as the ultimate proof of black people's potential and a symbolic refutation of anti-black racist claims about their inferiority. If they perceive you as somehow dissociating them from Egypt, they think you're doubting black people's capacity for civilization.

This is the part that strikes me as odd.

No one doubts northern Europeans' capacity for civilization, even though until about a thousand years ago northern European ethnic stock was much more likely to be trying to take a given civilization apart than to be putting it back together.

Why should anyone doubt sub-Saharan Africans' capacity for civilization? And why should anyone expect me to doubt that? Sub-Saharan Africans have at least as good a set of credentials when it comes to 'ability to be civilized' as Scandinavians do, probably better.

Granted, Africa is a mess right now, but so was most of Europe at a time not all that long ago (the Thirty Years' War managed to be about as ugly as many of the ongoing conflicts in Africa, just to name one), and Africa has plenty of reasons to be messed up that have nothing to do with any presumed 'racial characteristics' of Africans.

And no one disputes that Europeans were capable of being 'civilized' in the 1600s and on, even while they were butchering each other on an ever-growing scale and depopulating whole countries with internecine religious and political disputes- and exporting this behavior to other continents to boot.

Why would anyone sane apply a different standard to Africa? It makes my brain hurt imagining someone thinking of Sudanese dervishes as 'uncivilized' while thinking of Bomber Harris's planning staff as 'civilized,' or thinking of the 'civilized' conqueror Napoleon while calling his contemporary Shaka Zulu 'uncivilized.' I have a hard time even holding that kind of double-think in my head long enough to grasp what is being thought at all.

I'm aware that a few score years ago, my ancestors were damn-fool enough to think this, and jackasses enough to oppress and brutalize people because they believed it. But I don't understand why I should have to be deferential to whatever other people dream up in an attempt to pound more nails into the coffin of that brand of collective stupidity.


Triece's attitude towards ancient Egypt reminds me disturbingly of what happens when white supremacists try to come up with quasi-mythical Aryan homelands to somehow "prove" that northern Europeans have been civilized for much longer than the conventional history admits. They don't need to do that in order to prove that their lineage is equal to that of other cultures. They only need that if they want to prove that their own lineage is somehow superior, because it is tied into some special ancient glory that no one else can match.

Also important is a certain irony in the idea of black people influencing the development of the very Western civilization that would enslave and subjugate them.

Well, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Persians, Indians, and Chinese all certainly wound up doing that, to varying degrees of directness.

[Democracy Fanboy]

You're welcome.

I may agree with Big Triece that most ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned Africans related to people whom we call "black", but I get the impression that he (she?) insists on labeling the Egyptians "black" because he wants to feel a personal connection to Egypt. Many African Diaspora people see the Egyptians and their achievements as the ultimate proof of black people's potential and a symbolic refutation of anti-black racist claims about their inferiority. If they perceive you as somehow dissociating them from Egypt, they think you're doubting black people's capacity for civilization.

This is the part that strikes me as odd.

No one doubts northern Europeans' capacity for civilization, even though until about a thousand years ago northern European ethnic stock was much more likely to be trying to take a given civilization apart than to be putting it back together.

Why should anyone doubt sub-Saharan Africans' capacity for civilization? And why should anyone expect me to doubt that? Sub-Saharan Africans have at least as good a set of credentials when it comes to 'ability to be civilized' as Scandinavians do, probably better.

Granted, Africa is a mess right now, but so was most of Europe at a time not all that long ago (the Thirty Years' War managed to be about as ugly as many of the ongoing conflicts in Africa, just to name one), and Africa has plenty of reasons to be messed up that have nothing to do with any presumed 'racial characteristics' of Africans.

And no one disputes that Europeans were capable of being 'civilized' in the 1600s and on, even while they were butchering each other on an ever-growing scale and depopulating whole countries with internecine religious and political disputes- and exporting this behavior to other continents to boot.

Why would anyone sane apply a different standard to Africa? It makes my brain hurt imagining someone thinking of Sudanese dervishes as 'uncivilized' while thinking of Bomber Harris's planning staff as 'civilized,' or thinking of the 'civilized' conqueror Napoleon while calling his contemporary Shaka Zulu 'uncivilized.' I have a hard time even holding that kind of double-think in my head long enough to grasp what is being thought at all.

I'm aware that a few score years ago, my ancestors were damn-fool enough to think this, and jackasses enough to oppress and brutalize people because they believed it. But I don't understand why I should have to be deferential to whatever other people dream up in an attempt to pound more nails into the coffin of that brand of collective stupidity.

Triece's attitude towards ancient Egypt reminds me disturbingly of what happens when white supremacists try to come up with quasi-mythical Aryan homelands to somehow "prove" that northern Europeans have been civilized for much longer than the conventional history admits. They don't need to do that in order to prove that their lineage is equal to that of other cultures. They only need that if they want to prove that their own lineage is somehow superior, because it is tied into some special ancient glory that no one else can match.

Unfortunately there exists this mindset that your culture or ethnicity is superior if it has left behind a lot of big stone buildings or conquered the world. The funny thing is that there are also people who don't have said mindset and nonetheless feel proud of their cultural heritage. I've never heard of Native North Americans, Polynesians, or Australian aborigines feeling they need a high-tech empire in their past to make their people look good; they seem content with their predominantly Paleolithic/Neolithic heritages. It's always white and African Diaspora people who equate their culture's worth with big buildings.

[Big Triece]

Triece's attitude towards ancient Egypt reminds me disturbingly of what happens when white supremacists try to come up with quasi-mythical Aryan homelands to somehow "prove" that northern Europeans have been civilized for much longer than the conventional history admits.

How exactly am I doing this? My contention for this entire thread, was to ask why do some people (Thanas for example) try to disconnect Kemet from it's inner African roots? I've instead had to explain why I'm letting my evidence guide my view that these ancient people were biologically of more southerly African origins (which has gone uncontested), and for that very reason I've been accused of being a "black supremacist" or an "Afrocentric". These accusations get tossed around with no refutation of my stance. Why does calling ancient Egypt black (which is was) grind some folk's gears?

[Lord Zentei]

How exactly am I doing this? My contention for this entire thread, was to ask why do some people (Thanas for example) try to disconnect Kemet from it's inner African roots? I've instead had to explain why I'm letting my evidence guide my view that these ancient people were biologically of more southerly African origins (which has gone uncontested), and for that very reason I've been accused of being a "black supremacist" or an "Afrocentric". These accusations get tossed around with no refutation of my stance. Why does calling ancient Egypt black (which is was) grind some folk's gears?

Maybe it's just your attitude that sucks. And you've tossed around a fair number of accusations yourself, or at least implied them. Perhaps what goes around comes around, yes?

[Lord Zentei]

Maybe not a significant influx, but I thought some people here were saying that if southern Egyptians were admixed with upriver Nubians, it would only be fair to suppose that northern Egyptians must have had some admixture with Southwest Asian neighboring them to the northeast.

OK, that's possible. I honestly haven't read the entire thread in depth.

I may agree with Big Triece that most ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned Africans related to people whom we call "black", but I get the impression that he (she?) insists on labeling the Egyptians "black" because he wants to feel a personal connection to Egypt. Many African Diaspora people see the Egyptians and their achievements as the ultimate proof of black people's potential and a symbolic refutation of anti-black racist claims about their inferiority. If they perceive you as somehow dissociating them from Egypt, they think you're doubting black people's capacity for civilization. Also important is a certain irony in the idea of black people influencing the development of the very Western civilization that would enslave and subjugate them.

Yes, I get that impression too. Though that's not at all my intent, and knowing the people on this forum, I daresay that no-one else here was going for that either.

[Big Triece]

I take it you don't get the difference between "homogenous compared to later groups" and "homogenous" as you falsely claimed earlier.

Bitch I've just cited a fucking study that stated that they were of continuous local Northeast African origin during early Dynastic times, therefore my stance is validated (taken into account what I stated earlier about the north and south). Stop trying to obfuscate shit!

That's been your beef all along: you're so desperate to paint this "racial double standard" picture of all who disagree with you that it's positively oozing out of your ears.

Yeah so you obviously don't have shit else to say, so bye.

[Big Triece]

Maybe it's just your attitude that sucks.

The fact that you haven't read this thread is apparent. It was not MY attitude that started the bullshit, it was attitude of a particular moderator who started this thread off by saying some real unwarranted bullshit (which he ended up having to apologize for), which lead to a whole host of regulars making unwarranted snide ass comments. I was the good apple that was spoiled by the bunch.