Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Broomstick]

Spoonist, your analysis makes sense to me, however, BigT needs to be more careful in regards to keeping straight who said what if he wishes to discuss or debate a topic.

[Big Triece]

Make up your mind, Triece – you agree that Keita said crania were not enough on which to base a conclusion, then you turn around and say it's enough evidence to conclude that the Egyptians were, to use an old and outdated phrase, “from darkest Africa”. You are seriously pushing an agenda here only tenuously based on the evidence.

No as Keita and I have stated you cannot base your ENTIRE argument pertaining to this subject SOLELY on crania analysis or SOLELY on any of the other scientific disciplines cited. What you however are attempting to do for whatever reason is throw the results of these cranial analysis out of the discussion all together. That's utterly ridiculous considering that the very source that you now cite conducts and heavily refers to crania analysis to help come to his conclusions about this subject.

Smh..Broomstick why are you putting words in mouth? If you aren't then quote where I stated that the ancient Egyptians were "from darkest Africa"! Better yet why is this such an issue with you?

The problem is that you recognize only sub-Saharan Africans as “indigenous Northeast African” but others – including Keita – recognize that there were other people just as African living on the northern coast of Africa.

Broomstick what are you talking about? Do you even know what region Northeast Africa is? Are you aware that only the Northern parts of Sudan and Egypt are the only areas of the region that do not lie south of the Sahara? You are aware that Nubia is not in Sub Saharan Africa aren't you? You are aware that the genocide of the "black" Africans of Darfur in the Sudan are not in Sub Saharan Africa aren't you?

Also please provide specific statements that I've made in which I am denying the "Africanity" of the Northern Africans. If you can't than your assertions are again baseless.

The Upper Egyptians did NOT simply invade an empty land, there were already people living there, and they assimilated them.

When did I state that they did Broomstick? If you would have read the passage by Keita in the very first post of this thread you would see where he mentions the biological affinities of the pre-existing populations of the Nile Valley:

"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.)(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)

Keita does not specify which Africans these early Nile Valley populations have biological affinities towards. Ricaut 2008 however does note the affinities of these ancient populations:

were just as African and did not simply vanish without a trace. Being assimilated by Upper Egypt did not magically make them all identical to Upper Egypt populations,

Ok so what is your point? Are you somehow insinuating that this ancient Nile Valley populations was distinct from African populations to the south from which they also came? What biological evidence do you base this insinuation upon?

Actually, there's not a single goddamn trait “unique” to northeast African.

I was speaking in terms of the unique Northeast African crania morphology, which tends to makes Northeast African group with Northeast Africans before they group with any other populations. This is also true as far as their genetics is concerned as well. Being the Northeast Africans that their skeletal remains indicate that they were, the early ancient Egyptians group with those populations as well. If genetic evidence were available for these ancient remains I'd be willing to bet that they like modern southern Egyptians would also group with indigenous Northeast Africans.

You're just taking a backdoor approach to proclaiming biological race, which your own hero Keita discredits.

No Keita and the majority of other anthropologist agree population variation and correlations occur throughout the different geographic locations of the world, which is likely due to environmental factors. The populations in this geographic region do vary in phenotype, but generally tend to group with one another in biological analysis than they do with populations not from that particular region. Regardless of if the populations whom they are being compared to are Europeans or other Africans.

In Ancient Egyptian art yellow ochre was the primary pigment for Egyptian women. Red ochre for Egyptian men. Carbon black (charcoal) for dark peoples. Paler people (such as those depicted as from the Middle East) were either the base coat for the wall or only a tinted form of white. This isn't a heck of a lot to chose from.

The colors vary due to chemical composition (these colors are basically dug out of the ground – different deposits vary in exact shade) and also due to the effects of time and any other chemicals that happen to have been around (such as in the base coast or the wall materials). Thus, as I said – the Egyptian palette was very limited, and on top of that you have to consider the highly symbolic ways they used art, as also recently noted by Thanas comparing Egyptian and Hellenistic renderings of the same woman. The unrelenting formula of Egyptian art might be why they labeled so many statures and reliefs and so one with names - it gets hard to tell them all apart otherwise.

I mean did I not just agree with you earlier for the same reasons noted that artwork, especially mural paintings are "suspect" evidence?

So, what Egyptian art tells us is that the Egyptians noted that the Nubians were not the same people as the Egyptians.

What biological evidence on the other hand indicates about the early Egyptians and Nubians were that they were essentially the same people:

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

The question that I feel must be asked about your argument is that if you view Egyptian artwork as no reliable to indicate biological affinities, why not just focus on what actual mainstream studies regarding the biological affinities of Egypt and their neighbors relay?

They chose to depict the Nubians as darker in their artwork/writing (really, there is no hard and fast division between “art” and “writing” in Ancient Egypt, they shaded into each other). What the difference as marked as in their art?

Again this is inconsistent on the part of your argument and indicative of a "hidden agenda" on YOUR part. Why do you undermine the legitimacy of ancient Egyptian artwork when it seemingly conveys my point that their dark reddish brown skin tone is identical (subjective) to the Northeast African populations previously posted on one hand; Yet on the other hand you use ancient Egyptian artwork to show that their was a physical distinction between the pitch black Dinka Nubians and dark reddish brown Egyptians?

We have no way of knowing for sure, but we can venture an informed guess.

This is true, Egyptian artwork is somewhat of a toss up. That's why we rely on biological, archaeological, cultural, and linguistic evidence to help come to a conclusion.

Therefore, I conclude that the Egyptians perceived some difference between themselves and the people to their south.

I would agree with this in terms of how of the Egyptian view. Egyptians viewed themselves as distinct from ALL of their neighbors through nationalism. Biological evidence however renders them essentially the same as the populations to the south.

Given how the Egyptians encoded the appearance of other people for whom we have more information, I conclude that the Nubians were to some degree darker, on average, than the Egyptians.

Broomstick after I presented my comparison of Egyptian skin tones with other Northeast Africans (which might I add showed a clear correlation) did you not reply that the skin color of Egyptian art is not an indicator of actual skin color (?):

Skin color as depicted in Egyptian are is NOT considered a reliable indicator of actual skin color because of this sort of color coding

So why are you now making conclusions of population relations based on the skin tone variation shown in Egyptian art? Please stop with the apparent double standard!

Then, for some reason you are ignoring the clear examples that I gave. The pitch black Nubians OBVIOUSLY represent the Dinka people of the western Sudan, NO ONE argues that the ancient Egyptians were generally as dark as the Dinka. You seem to be intentionally equating this one Nubian population as representative of the phenotype for all populations south of Egypt, when I've clearly showed you otherwise.

[Big Triece]

Third, I would describe the people in most of those images as “medium brown”, not “dark brown”.

First of all I stated dark reddish brown. The same dark reddish brown that the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as in Seti's tomb:

The Somalis depicted are notably lighter than some others in the region, such as some of the Nubian groups.

Ok so what! I've stated that the ancient Egyptians did not look like your average Dinka (the blackest people on Earth) and instead that they looked like Somalis and other modern Horn African populations who are also dark skinned. What is the point that you wish to convey?

It's an illustration of where being “lighter” does NOT mean one is necessarily “European pale”, just relatively less dark.

The problem that I had with your assertion was the term "pale". I've never heard of any tropically adapted African population being regarded as "pale" which is generally only used to refer to variations in skin tones of people whom we consider "white". I have however heard and used the term "lighter" in reference to different tropically adapted African populations.

It's a clear illustration that someone with some background other than just sub-Saharan African can still be dark skinned, darker even than some “tropically adapted” African groups. Thank you for making my point.

What? Why are you just referencing Iman's skin color as the representative of Somali people? The first group of children posted earlier was Somalis and are darker than Iman, Eddie Murphy, and the Nigerian children that I posted right below them. So no I don't see how it proves your point...what ever that may be!

No, I am not – I am well aware that there are multiple lineages under the name “Nubia”, it's just that no one would bother to read a post where every single one is listed.

Obviously you aren't! You seem to be on a mission to restrict the term "Nubian" to the pitch black Dinka Nubians in reference to their general skin tone difference in Egyptian art. Every time I show you that there was an evident skin tone correlation between the ancient Egyptians depictions of themselves and some "Nubian" populations you seem to want to dismiss the only piece of evidence that you have that distinguishes the ancient Egyptians from some Nubians in physical appearance, which is Egyptian art.

I also posted two images of sub-Saharan people from the tropics showing a significant difference in skin color between two different groups. Please go back and look at them if you skipped the first time as I see no purposes in posting and reposting the same pictures.

I mean...I saw "variation", but not a "significant difference" between their dark skin tones to conclude anything. Again why are you so fixated on specific skin tones? I'm content with just calling the ancient Egyptians dark skinned Africans, which they were based on ecological principal. For whatever reason this simple fact just does not sit well with you. Since you appear to be so fixated on ascribing a specific skin tone to the ancient Egyptians, then why not post a relative modern population whom you believe their skin tone likely resembled.

As I posted earlier, there is quite a range of skin colors gathered under the term “black”. “Black” is not a code word for “tropical”, nor is “tropical” code for “black” - at least not for most of us.

"Black" or "Negro" is code for any dark skinned African population, as the definition read that I gave earlier.

With that said, why not just except the statement that the ancient Egyptians were a dark skinned African populations? You don't have to resort to social "coding" by conceding to this biological fact.

Apparently you are NOT familiar with African “pygmies” (the word is usually considered offensive these days, in case you didn't know) as their skin color is notably lighter (while still being brown) than many of the larger African groups such as the Bantu and others, and their bodies are proportioned differently as well as being shorter than most other peoples'.

Broomstick...POINT BEING? They are a dark skinned tropically adapted African population:



Please stop with the straw man argument that I'm attributing a single skin tone to tropically adapted populations. You know I've never done so, I know I've never done so, everyone reading this discussion knows that I have not. I, like Keita have stated that based on ecological principal that these populations are "dark skinned” where is that attributing a monolithic skin tone. Better yet if you are going to continue this straw man than provide a direct quote from my argument in which I did.

African-Americans are a terrible example as they have so much admixture from other groups that they are not representative of native African populations.

Well considering the fact that the largest genetic study of Africans and African Americans found the latter to be over 80% African in ancestry, I would hesitate to call us admixed:

Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observed high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historical migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5 ... 5.abstract

Many do not have “tropically adapted” body proportions, and there's considerable historical evidence of many who were pale enough to “pass for white” and did so.

Well I mean that could be subjectively argued that "many" do not. Due to social groupings people with African ancestry were considered "black". That does not obscure that fact that the general African American populations are still overwhelmingly African. If you look at who the ancient Egyptians clustered with on the limb proportions chart posted earlier you will see African Americans in the group with the other super tropically adapted populations.

Many others have considerable Native American or Asian ancestry. Really, they're not a good example for the purposes of this discussion.

Despite that African Americans always group with Africans in genetic studies as well as skeletally. It would help your point to do a little more research and perhaps present evidence before you make such claims.

Except... we're NOT talking about the “western viewpoint”, we're talking about the Ancient Egyptians and, perhaps, their viewpoint. YOU'RE the one taking the simplistic viewpoint that all those shades are exactly the same

Well considering that I am the OP of this thread it would probably be up to ME to signal what was the "viewpoint" or perspective that we would take in the discussion of this thread. I never specified a particular perspective from which this discussion would be seen from. Therefore if the question were to arise regarding a perspective then its fair game.

What is wrong with taking a "simplicistic" approach to the discussion as opposed to over complicating a pretty clear cut issue? I mean in all honestly "social" perspective is where it's geared to, and denying it only makes you look like the dishonest one with a "hidden" agenda. My cards have already been laid out, so have nothing to "hide"!

Also the term "black" does not and never has implied that there was some uniform skin tone that grouped us together. Just look at a collage of African Americans to dispute such a ridiculous assertion. The skin color in this grouping however is generally dark and African ancestry being the reason for that.

You speak as if body proportions and skin tone are inextricably linked. They are not

Broomstick the sole source that you have cited in this discussion, has stated in the very lecture that you so elegantly paraphrased section by section that based on ecological principal that the ancient Egyptians were "dark skinned". Thus according to your sole source the ancient Egyptians were "dark skinned" Africans. Why are you fighting against this fact so much?

Oh, please – special arguing, simply because they're Nubians!

Really – Piye invaded Egypt and took over. Piye's successor Shabaka captured the last claimant to the 24th Dynasty and burned him alive – uh, yeah, “rest orators”, “non-conquerors”, and “restorers” my ass.

A little more digging is in order:

Piye was the first of the so-called black pharaohs—a series of Nubian kings who ruled over all of Egypt for three-quarters of a century as that country’s 25th dynasty. Through inscriptions carved on stelae by both the Nubians and their enemies, it is possible to map out these rulers’ vast footprint on the continent. The black pharaohs reunified a tattered Egypt and filled its landscape with glorious monuments, creating an empire that stretched from the southern border at present-day Khartoum all the way north to the Mediterranean Sea. They stood up to the bloodthirsty Assyrians, perhaps saving Jerusalem in the process.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/ ... per-text/2

The above is from the Febuary edition of Nat Geo.

You are – with your continued assertions that everything came out of Upper Egypt and Upper Egypt came entirely out of the south.

Your distortions of other peoples' arguments in your attempt to hammer them into an opposing viewpoint is getting tiresome.

This is yet another emotionally driven straw man argument thrown at me by you. Show me specifically where I insinuate that everything came out of Upper Egypt. Why are you equating me revealing the Upper Egyptian origins of Dynastic culture with minimizing Lower Egyptian culture? It's just a fact that Upper Egyptian culture is the base of Egyptian culture; it does not mean that Lower Egyptians did not contribute. Please drop this emotional plea!

One more time – cultural influence does NOT require either invasion or immigration! Normal trade, much of which was documented in writing, can easily account for many of the external inputs into the Egyptian culture.

If you are talking about Pre-Dynastic Egyptian culture, besides "the damn goats" what other contributions came from the Middle East?

You mean... east African where the light brown Somalis come from?

Now where you see "light brown" Somalis I see Africans who are much darker than me a person who is considered "light brown", you see more subjective interpretations that could be eliminated by just conceding to the fact that the ancient Egyptians were "dark skinned Africans". Oh by the way if the Somali children or women above are "light brown" then what does that make the Nigerian children also posted above who are "lighter" than them?

I don't disagree with the scholars – I disagree with YOU. You, personally.

I mean that's easy enough to say, but what I argue is what I get from the scholars themselves.

• When I simply point at to you the scholarly fact that Dynastic culture originated in Upper Egypt by Upper Egyptians, you create an emotionally driven straw man that I argue that Lower Egypt contributed nothing to early Egyptian history.
  
  When I relay to you that Keita states that based on ecological principal that the ancient Egyptians would indeed be "dark skinned", you attribute that as me arguing that there is some monlithic tropically adapted skin color that the ancient Egyptians had.

[Big Triece]

There are similar examples in Olmec art, too:



However, no one credible is proposing that the Olmecs were actually Nubians.

You have been presented with evidence that broad featured Africans had a signifigant presence in the Sahara and the early settlement of Egypt, so why are you trying to explain away statues that obiously depict broad featured Africans? Why the denial?

Art can be indicative, but one must always use caution when doing so because it may or may not accurately reflect actual people. For example, Egyptian art shows that they were aware that different people came in different skin shades, but due to the formulaic and symbolic nature of their art it would be presumptuous to say that their art reflected actual skin colors. At best, it might mark out relative skin colors in certain contexts.

(A further complication is that the Egyptian color palette for art was quite limited by our standards - they simply couldn't render shades and hues with as much nuance as we can today.)

Double standard. Case and point when Egyptian art conveys my point, then Egyptian art is not a reliable indicator of reality. Yet you later go on to base a difference of physical appearance between the ancient Egyptians and the Nubians based solely on art. You can't have it both ways!

[Thanas]

Was Kleopatra VII a broad-featured African?

[Big Triece]

I will respond to other details as soon as I have time, but this one is actually an area I have experience in. And the problem with busts and even large-scale statues is that the Egyptian masons were not skilled enough to create real-life depictions. Before the hellenization of Egypt, they could not even get the flowing movements of dancers or body proportions right. For example, their depiction of female anatomy was very, very unskilled compared to the "real-life" portraist we would epect. And then there is of course the problem that depictions are not always made according to real features, but more depicting the idealistic symbols of kings/queens etc. There is a reason Historians do not trust ancient depictions to be real-life depictions until the era of the greeks, and even then we have to be wary of them (Alexander's Pharaoh descriptions for example are highly idealized as well).

So I would not use the Sphinx or busts etc. as any kind of visual evidence. Same with the paintings - we cannot use any kind of skintone from them because colors depend a lot on the material used and wether there was a specific style.

In summary the statues don't represent real Egyptians because of their apparent broad African features, which you do not want to see.

BTW, it should be noted that ancient writers who travelled to Egypt made no mention of a different skintone, which should be taken to mean that there was not that much of a difference from the skintone of the levante or the Northern African coast.

The ancient Greeks, who are also "suspect" evidence did take note of the close appearance that the ancient Egyptians had with populations further south particularly the Ethiopians:

Herodotus: "Colchians are an Egyptian race . . . . the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair, which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations are so too." (The Histories, Book 2:104)

"Too black a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two."
(Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a)

"Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair."

(Physiognomics, Book XIV, p. 317)

Gee what do ya know, more evidence findings that they looked like modern Horners.

The evidence that the broad facial structures of Egyptian busts etc. (which are nowhere near as prevelant as you make them out to be, see the famous bust of Nefertiti for example, which depicts a women who would be at ease in any European setting

You would know this how?








Limestone Bust of Kufu of the fourth dynasty


Sahure of the fifth dynasty

[Big Triece]

Was Kleopatra VII a broad-featured African?

Why would she be? Cleopatra was of Greek origin!

[Thanas]

In summary the statues don't represent real Egyptians because of their apparent broad African features, which you do not want to see.

I am getting a bit tired of you strawmanning everything in this thread. No, the statues are not indicative of anything because their facial features are not made to look like the persons they are based on, but rather the features are pretty standard.

The ancient Greeks, who are also "suspect" evidence did take note of the close appearance that the ancient Egyptians had with populations further south particularly the Ethiopians:

Herodotus: "Colchians are an Egyptian race . . . . the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair, which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations are so too." (The Histories, Book 2:104)

Now now, let us quote him in full.

There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race. Before
I heard any mention of the fact from others, I had remarked it myself.
After the thought had struck me, I made inquiries on the subject both
in Colchis and in Egypt, and I found that the Colchians had a more
distinct recollection of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians had of
them. Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to
be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded,
first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair,
which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations
are so too; but further and more especially, on the circumstance that
the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations
who have practised circumcision from the earliest times. The Phoenicians
and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the
custom of the Egyptians; and the Syrians who dwell about the rivers
Thermodon and Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macronians,
say that they have recently adopted it from the Colchians. Now these
are the only nations who use circumcision, and it is plain that they
all imitate herein the Egyptians. With respect to the Ethiopians,
indeed, I cannot decide whether they learnt the practice of the Egyptians,
or the Egyptians of them- it is undoubtedly of very ancient date in
Ethiopia- but that the others derived their knowledge of it from Egypt
is clear to me from the fact that the Phoenicians, when they come
to have commerce with the Greeks, cease to follow the Egyptians in
this custom, and allow their children to remain uncircumcised.

Herodotus clearly equals the skintones of Colchians and Egyptians. It is however a small problem for your case that the colchians inhabited the Caucasus. Are you now saying the caucasus was populated by inner africans as well? So this actually proves the case that the skintone of the Egyptians was not any darker than that of Caucasians (note: real caucasians, not the faux modern term). I guess you just shot yourself in the foot there.

"Too black a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two."
(Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a)

"Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair."

(Physiognomics, Book XIV, p. 317)

Gee what do ya know, more evidence findings that they looked like modern Horners.

Not really. For once, your second "source" was deemed so unreliable even in antiquity that no other author copied it. Second, there is no evidence the author ever travelled to Egypt or saw an Egyptian. Third, even if we were to accept it, there is still the matter of the far authoritative source disagreeing with it.

You would know this how?








Limestone Bust of Kufu of the fourth dynasty


Sahure of the fifth dynasty

How do any of these disagree with what I stated?

Was Kleopatra VII a broad-featured African?

Why would she be? Cleopatra was of Greek origin!

And yet she is depicted in Egyptian Art as a "broad-featured African". One more nail in the coffin of these portraits being anything close to "real portraits".

[Frank Hipper]

That is not a bust of Khufu.

[Thanas]

That is not a bust of Khufu.

You mean he just lied about it? What Bust is it then?

[Frank Hipper]

That is not a bust of Khufu.

You mean he just lied about it? What Bust is it then?

It could be he was led astray by his source, rather than lie, but what I do know is that the only known statue of Khufu is this famous ivory miniature.

[Thanas]

There are three other tentatively identified busts (including one limestone bust in Munich), but I just looked them up in our university database and they do not look like what he posted. Maybe a mistake, but:

Big Triece, you are hereby required to cite sources for each of your pictures.

[Big Triece]

That is not a bust of Khufu.

You mean he just lied about it? What Bust is it then?

It could be he was led astray by his source, rather than lie, but what I do know is that the only known statue of Khufu is this famous ivory miniature.

Mybad it was a mix up.

http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_py ... _head2.htm

Reserve Head of a Man. Giza; Fourth Dynasty, probably reign of Khufu (ca. 2551?2528 B.C.E.). Limestone; H. 11 7/8 in. (30 cm). Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Harvard University?Museum of Fine Arts Expedition (14.719).

Although each reserve head has characteristics that make it unique, this example stands out from the group. It is one of the largest and is the most perfectly preserved, exhibiting none of the intentional damage found on others. Excavated in a shaft with another head, this one was originally identified as the Nubian wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb. Although the face has affinities with later depictions of Nubians, it also bears a striking resemblance to statues of Fourth Dynasty kings and undoubtedly represents an Egyptian. The variations among reserve heads probably reflect the diversity in Egypt's population.

[Simon_Jester]

Was Kleopatra VII a broad-featured African?

Why would she be? Cleopatra was of Greek origin!

What it comes down to, Triece, is that any art from ancient Egypt is of questionable value when it comes to representation. We today assume that if you make a statue of yourself, it reflects the real you: a statue of Lenin looks like Lenin, a portrait of Abraham Lincoln looks like Abraham Lincoln. The sculptor/painter/whatever may smooth over a few warts or make the subject look more noble and heroic than they really are, but the art will bear a strong resemblance to the original person, such that you could immediately recognize the statue from the person or vice versa.

This is a cultural custom. It is not a law of the universe. That is easily grasped when working at even the most basic level of multiculturalism- namely, being aware other cultures can exist and people won't always think and act the same way you do.

In much of the ancient world the custom did not exist, or was applied inconsistently. If we look at ancient art, it often has exaggerated physical features that we today would regard as cartoonish (huge eyes, physically unrealistic postures or proportions). That custom of 'realism' cannot be assumed to exist, or to exist in all times and places.

In Egypt in particular, people were often portrayed unrealistically or symbolically: skin color might mean something to the culture that led people to be drawn as black, red, yellow, green, blue... you get the idea. The fact that pharoahs' faces might be drawn as blue did not mean they, or anyone else in Egypt, was in point of fact blue.

Likewise, for example, I doubt you would infer from this statue of Hatshepsut that the famous female ruler of Egypt had a beard.

[Thanas]

^Actually, Simon, Egyptian rulers always wore a false beard. This is insigna, not facial description.


Back at Triece: Your statue is so small and so damaged/made by unskilled persons, I doubt one can infer anything with regards to proportions from it.

[Big Triece]

Herodotus clearly equals the skintones of Colchians and Egyptians. It is however a small problem for your case that the colchians inhabited the Caucasus. Are you now saying the caucasus was populated by inner africans as well? So this actually proves the case that the skintone of the Egyptians was not any darker than that of Caucasians (note: real caucasians, not the faux modern term). I guess you just shot yourself in the foot there.

No I'm not insinuating that the Colchians were "black". The point that I was making with that snippet was that the ancient Greeks made referenced to what they perceived as the "blackness" of the ancient Egyptians "black skin" and "whoolly hair" to come to such a conclusion.

Not really. For once, your second "source" was deemed so unreliable even in antiquity that no other author copied it. Second, there is no evidence the author ever travelled to Egypt or saw an Egyptian. Third, even if we were to accept it, there is still the matter of the far authoritative source disagreeing with it.

What authorative sources? You have provided nothing of scholarly value to this debate! With the exception of the debunked (directly by other Bio-Anthropologist) Brace et al. 93' every single piece of Bio-cultural evidence presented on this subject proves that the ancient Egyptians came from and looked like populations to the south of them. I mean do you not find it a coincidence that modern anthropologist consider modern Ethiopians and Somalis to be the closest modern population biologically resembling the ancient Egyptians, which is the same thing that the ancient Greeks wrote? Then if you really want to get down to the academic sources and drop the subjective artwork then we can go right back to that, I believe it your turn to make the next move!

And yet she is depicted in Egyptian Art as a "broad-featured African". One more nail in the coffin of these portraits being anything close to "real portraits".

Dude you are naive and not even worth arguing with, welcome to my ignore list.

[Simon_Jester]

Triece, you're a fool.

Thanas knows a great deal more about ancient history than nearly anyone else I know, certainly more than anyone else I know on this site. If you cannot address his arguments, trying to assert that he is "naive and not even worth arguing with" is a blatant lie, and one that reveals you as a desperate fool attempting to cover up his foolishness by committing greater acts of foolishness.

EDIT: in addition, this is a violation of clearly stated forum rules. And it so happens that the main guy responsible for enforcing those rules in here is... Thanas.

Bad move, buddy.

^Actually, Simon, Egyptian rulers always wore a false beard. This is insigna, not facial description.

I know; that's my point. We cannot assume, from statues of pharaohs, that any Egyptian ruler had a beard, let alone Hatshepsut.

But Hatshepsut is perhaps the best possible example. It's quite conceivable that some of the male pharoahs had an elaborately groomed beard that at least resembled the ceremonial beards on their statues. It's impossible that Hatshepsut had one.

So I went straight for the extreme limiting case- Hatshepsut's ceremonial false beard- to illustrate the general point: Egyptian art depicting human beings cannot always be assumed to be representational.

Of course, while we're at it, there are statues of Hatshepsut as a sphinx, which is even more unlikely. And those have the beard too, of course.

[Edi]

snip

Dude you are naive and not even worth arguing with, welcome to my ignore list.

One more post like this ignoring evidence inconvenient to your position and I will ask Dalton permission to ban you for being a dishonest, Levantine goat-molesting lying sack of shit.

You don't get to ignore evidence just because you don't like it. You'll either follow the forum rules or suffer the consequences. Should have known you were an agenda pushing, afrocentrist twat.

I also owe PharaohMentuhotep an abject apology for originally thinking that there was less substance to him than to you. He has held up his end of the debate in an exemplary manner. The same cannot be said of you.

[Big Triece]

deleted

[Big Triece]

What it comes down to, Triece, is that any art from ancient Egypt is of questionable value when it comes to representation.

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.

Case and point look at what Broomstick did in his analysis of Egyptian art. I first present statues that clearly depict broad featured Africans in a region of Africa that I had JUST previously validated (via peer review evidence) that they were present in. He then goes on to insinuate that the likelihood of those statues actually represented broad featured Africans is as good as the Olmec statues of Meso American representing broad featured Africans. This is clearly denial! Or when I present my case that the general dark reddish brown skin tone displayed in Egyptian art is most prevalent in the same modern populations that Bio-cultural evidence links the ancient Egyptians to (Horn Africans), he asserts that the skintone of ancient Egyptian artwork is "NOT" a reliable indicator of their actual skintone. Then he goes on to come to the conclusion that based on the skintone of Egyptian art work being lighter than the Dinka Nubians depicted in Egyptian art that the ancient Egyptians were lighter than Nubians. That is clearly a contradiction!

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?

[Big Triece]

One more post like this ignoring evidence inconvenient to your position and I will ask Dalton permission to ban you for being a dishonest, Levantine goat-molesting lying sack of shit

Please stop talking to me!

[Simon_Jester]

One more post like this ignoring evidence inconvenient to your position and I will ask Dalton permission to ban you for being a dishonest, Levantine goat-molesting lying sack of shit

Please stop talking to me!

Triece, I have to ask, because I really can't tell:

Are you aware that you are speaking to the forum moderators, who are giving you warnings that your behavior is about to get you banned?

I will attempt to explain, as I would to a retarded child.

The grownups don't like it when you throw temper tantrums, Triece. They don't like it when you stick your fingers in your ears and go "hmm hmm hmm I'm not listening." They don't think people should do that. So if you keep doing that, the grownups will make you go away and you won't be able to come back. And everyone will remember what a big whiny stupid baby you were, Triece.

And you won't have gotten them to think your story about Egyptians being really dark-skinned is true, which is what you want, right?

What it comes down to, Triece, is that any art from ancient Egypt is of questionable value when it comes to representation.

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.

Case and point look at what Broomstick did in his analysis of Egyptian art.

Broomstick is a she.

I first present statues that clearly depict broad featured Africans in a region of Africa that I had JUST previously validated (via peer review evidence) that they were present in. He then goes on to insinuate that the likelihood of those statues actually represented broad featured Africans is as good as the Olmec statues of Meso American representing broad featured Africans. This is clearly denial!

You miss the point. The point is that "broad features" on a statue are not a reliable guarantee that the person in question is part of the genetic group you associate with broad features. If you want to argue genetics, do so. But relying on Egyptian art as evidence that a significant fraction of Egyptians look in any particular way is foolish.

You should be easily able to understand this.

Or when I present my case that the general dark reddish brown skin tone displayed in Egyptian art is most prevalent in the same modern populations that Bio-cultural evidence links the ancient Egyptians to (Horn Africans), he asserts that the skintone of ancient Egyptian artwork is "NOT" a reliable indicator of their actual skintone. Then he goes on to come to the conclusion that based on the skintone of Egyptian art work being lighter than the Dinka Nubians depicted in Egyptian art that the ancient Egyptians were lighter than Nubians. That is clearly a contradiction!

No, it is not.

Point one:
The Egyptians had a relatively limited number of pigments, mostly mineral-based, that are still visible on their statuary. They tended to color things in bright primary colors- red, black, yellow, blue... you get the idea. This makes it very hard to recover the details and nuances of color from Egyptian artwork. I'm sure the Egyptians of the time had pigments that they could use to more closely match the colors of a human face, but I suspect a lot of them wouldn't have stood the test of time the way their mineral pigments did.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to point out that we cannot get precise skin tones from looking at four thousand year old Egyptian artwork, any more than we can get a precise idea of ancient Greek religious ceremonial by looking at three thousand year old potsherds. We can try to reconstruct, but there will inevitably be gaps in our knowledge that must be filled by guesswork or, better yet, admitting we don't know everything.

Point two:
Egyptian artwork was often abstract or representational. Color was not always used to depict the real colors of objects. For example, we cannot assume that blue-faced depictions of Pharaohs mean that there were blue people in ancient Egypt. Blue may well have been used for symbolic reasons, or to draw attention to the Pharaoh's face when he is surrounded by other people. Likewise, we cannot assume that Hatshepsut had a beard just because most statues of her depict her with one.

Moreover, Egyptian art often used colors for other, similar reasons- say, in a line of oxen you might see alternating colors of oxen- red and yellow or whatever. This is not to indicate that in real life ancient Egyptians always carefully paired off oxen of different colors; it is because it breaks up the visual sameness of a long line of identically colored oxen.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to point out that this casts even more doubt on our ability to get correct skin tones off ancient Egyptian artwork; even if they had photorealistic pigments that would stand the test of time, there's no reason to assume they would have always used those pigments.

Point three:
Let us ignore point two, and assume that the Egyptians always tried to portray skin colors accurately, and did the best they could to pick a pigment that would do that. If so, and if the Egyptians were generally of the same color as Nubians, then one would expect Egyptians and Nubians to be consistently portrayed using the same color or range of colors.

We can look at the art and ask if this was the case. If it was not, it casts grave doubt on the claim that the Egyptians were the same color, or nearly the same color, as the Nubians.

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?

Because what you call 'evidence' I call 'incompetently assembled tissue of nonsense' or, more generously, 'cherry-picking your evidence in an attempt to prove that which cannot be proved by the angle of attack you have chosen to prove it.'
________

Speaking for myself, I have never in my life doubted that the ancient Egyptians were "indigenous." From the first time I even heard of ancient Egypt, I cannot recall any other theory being seriously claimed- the Egyptians have lived in that region since the dawn of recorded history, and indeed arguably invented the practice of recording history while living in that region. I see no reason to assume that the present and former occupants of Egypt, and their prehistoric descendants, haven't lived in the Nile Valley for tens of millenia. Why would I assume anything else?

I have never in my life doubted that Egyptians are a "northeast African" population, since Egypt is located in Africa, and in the northeasternmost part of it. This obvious to anyone with a grasp of elementary geography.

On the other hand, I have no clue what color said ancient Egyptians were. I always figured they were sort of kind of brownish, because most people are, especially outside of northern Europe and the Far East, both of which are a long way from Egypt and have very different climates. This never struck me as a major point of contention, worth making grand ambitious statements about.

So if you can question my motives, I think I have a right to question yours. Why is the skin color of ancient Egyptians so important to you, as you insinuate that it is important to us?

[SirNitram]

As Moderator of this forum now: Everyone will be observing the rules in the Announcements forums, just to re-inforce them. Failure to do so will result in moderator action by me. I am not a very nice person.

[Dalton]

One more post like this ignoring evidence inconvenient to your position and I will ask Dalton permission to ban you for being a dishonest, Levantine goat-molesting lying sack of shit

Please stop talking to me!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Fucking crybaby.

[Broomstick]

Case and point look at what Broomstick did in his analysis of Egyptian art.

Broomstick is a she.

While that is true, I don't feel my gender is relevant to the debate and therefore never corrected BigT. Given that most people on SD.net are, in fact, male that's not an unreasonable guess on his part.

Egyptian artwork was often abstract or representational. Color was not always used to depict the real colors of objects. For example, we cannot assume that blue-faced depictions of Pharaohs mean that there were blue people in ancient Egypt. Blue may well have been used for symbolic reasons, or to draw attention to the Pharaoh's face when he is surrounded by other people.

Blue and green are associated with gods and the underworld/afterlife. The fact that such pigments were typically from ground stones like malachite and lapis lazuli, which had value as gems, no doubt fed into the perception of high value that went along with royalty and divinity.

As an example, Osiris is often depicted with green skin, associated with his status of being dead and mummified. While dead bodies can turn greenish, they usually aren't the bright, vivid shade of Osiris in Egyptian art. Again, this gets back to a limited palette as well as the highly formalized/ritualized nature of Egyptian art.