Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Denial of Ancient Egypt's black origins

SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:17:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient EgyptiansProfessor S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University

Professor A. J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population
Oxford University

What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?

These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.

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

Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.

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

The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Ku****es and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.

There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.

The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).

Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.

This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.

The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.

The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (M
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:19:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.

In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.

References Cited:

Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic
Burial from Southern Egypt. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986

Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990

Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987

Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993

Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annah of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987

Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study
of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993

Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984

Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984

Even with this conclusive Biological evidence confirming that the original ancient Egyptians came from and look like Africans in the Horn (Somalis and Ethiopians) some people still opt to ignore it assert that they were some sort Arabanized hybrid population. Why is this?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:32:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
All human beings trace their origin from Africa, but Egypt was an mixed race place, you had Europeans, Arabs, a some Sub-Saharan's living there, but I don't truly see the point about arguing about Egypt, it's an empire that's been done to death.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:37:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:32:04 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
All human beings trace their origin from Africa, but Egypt was an mixed race place, you had Europeans, Arabs, a some Sub-Saharan's living there, but I don't truly see the point about arguing about Egypt, it's an empire that's been done to death.

My main contention was that the ORIGINAL population of ancient Egypt were of Horn African and ancient Saharan origins. Middle Easterners and Europeans did indeed settle on the Nile but it was well after the foundation of the civilization was laid. Biological evidence has conclusively proved that this was the case.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:39:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:37:38 AM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:32:04 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
All human beings trace their origin from Africa, but Egypt was an mixed race place, you had Europeans, Arabs, a some Sub-Saharan's living there, but I don't truly see the point about arguing about Egypt, it's an empire that's been done to death.

My main contention was that the ORIGINAL population of ancient Egypt were of Horn African and ancient Saharan origins. Middle Easterners and Europeans did indeed settle on the Nile but it was well after the foundation of the civilization was laid. Biological evidence has conclusively proved that this was the case.

The original population of every place on earth is of Saharan origins.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 10:23:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:39:35 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:37:38 AM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:32:04 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
All human beings trace their origin from Africa, but Egypt was an mixed race place, you had Europeans, Arabs, a some Sub-Saharan's living there, but I don't truly see the point about arguing about Egypt, it's an empire that's been done to death.

My main contention was that the ORIGINAL population of ancient Egypt were of Horn African and ancient Saharan origins. Middle Easterners and Europeans did indeed settle on the Nile but it was well after the foundation of the civilization was laid. Biological evidence has conclusively proved that this was the case.

The original population of every place on earth is of Saharan origins.

Come on now dude you know what I mean, no need to be dishonest about this. The origins of the Egyptian civilization (according to the scholarly article above and just about every serious scholar who studies the subject) the original ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast African populations (black) who migrated northward and settled on the Nile. The skeletal remains of the early ancient Egyptians overlap with modern day populations from Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia, and are distinct from Middle Easterners and Europeans. Hence they were black. I'm just asking why in light of all of this irrefutable evidence do some absolutely refuse to concede to this fact?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 10:27:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 10:23:28 AM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:39:35 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:37:38 AM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:32:04 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
All human beings trace their origin from Africa, but Egypt was an mixed race place, you had Europeans, Arabs, a some Sub-Saharan's living there, but I don't truly see the point about arguing about Egypt, it's an empire that's been done to death.

My main contention was that the ORIGINAL population of ancient Egypt were of Horn African and ancient Saharan origins. Middle Easterners and Europeans did indeed settle on the Nile but it was well after the foundation of the civilization was laid. Biological evidence has conclusively proved that this was the case.

The original population of every place on earth is of Saharan origins.

Come on now dude you know what I mean, no need to be dishonest about this. The origins of the Egyptian civilization (according to the scholarly article above and just about every serious scholar who studies the subject) the original ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast African populations (black) who migrated northward and settled on the Nile. The skeletal remains of the early ancient Egyptians overlap with modern day populations from Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia, and are distinct from Middle Easterners and Europeans. Hence they were black. I'm just asking why in light of all of this irrefutable evidence do some absolutely refuse to concede to this fact?

What most are arguing about is what happened to the original inhabitants, considering it was an mixed race group and the mass influx of Arabs, the land eventually did become Arabic, sure the first few hundred years it may have been predominantly Black but after another few hundred it became predominantly Arab, in my opinion it doesn't truly matter.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 11:23:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 10:27:35 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/6/2011 10:23:28 AM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:39:35 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:37:38 AM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:32:04 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
All human beings trace their origin from Africa, but Egypt was an mixed race place, you had Europeans, Arabs, a some Sub-Saharan's living there, but I don't truly see the point about arguing about Egypt, it's an empire that's been done to death.

My main contention was that the ORIGINAL population of ancient Egypt were of Horn African and ancient Saharan origins. Middle Easterners and Europeans did indeed settle on the Nile but it was well after the foundation of the civilization was laid. Biological evidence has conclusively proved that this was the case.

The original population of every place on earth is of Saharan origins.

Come on now dude you know what I mean, no need to be dishonest about this. The origins of the Egyptian civilization (according to the scholarly article above and just about every serious scholar who studies the subject) the original ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast African populations (black) who migrated northward and settled on the Nile. The skeletal remains of the early ancient Egyptians overlap with modern day populations from Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia, and are distinct from Middle Easterners and Europeans. Hence they were black. I'm just asking why in light of all of this irrefutable evidence do some absolutely refuse to concede to this fact?

What most are arguing about is what happened to the original inhabitants, considering it was an mixed race group and the mass influx of Arabs, the land eventually did become Arabic, sure the first few hundred years it may have been predominantly Black but after another few hundred it became predominantly Arab, in my opinion it doesn't truly matter.

The only thing that "happened" to the original black Egyptians is that they absorbed gene flow (mixed) from later pro-longed small scale migrating populations from the Levant. By around the New Kingdom this pro-longed small scale migration had altered the biological affinities of the original black Egyptian populace.

You are also very incorrect in your statement that Egypt was only black for a couple of hundred in years, when dental and cranial analysis have found that the original black populace remained intact (little to no foreign migration) from Pre-Dynastic to Early Dynastic times (which is over a thousand years).

Dynastic Egypt was NEVER Arab, as the Arab invasion of Northern Africa did not occur until almost 700 A.D. which was hundreds of years AFTER the last pharonic Dynastic of Egypt. Please do not interchange Arab with Middle Eastern as there are many ethnicities in that region which are not Arab. Anyway here is a peer reviewed article to inform you on the true population history of ancient Egypt:

"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

Thus confirming that the original ancient Egyptians were black before admixture from Middle Eastern and European populations migrated and invaded the Nile during later periods.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 2:50:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Even with this conclusive Biological evidence confirming that the original ancient Egyptians came from and look like Africans in the Horn (Somalis and Ethiopians) some people still opt to ignore it assert that they were some sort Arabanized hybrid population. Why is this?:

Egyptians are neither Arab nor black... They're more closely akin to Berbers. You are aware that not all Africans look sub-saharan, right?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 2:51:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 2:39:13 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but are we just discussing whether or not Egypt was full of black people?

We are discussing the origins of ancient Egypt and YES according to the biological evidence shown above (along which much more) Egypt (Kemet) was ORIGINALLY full of black people.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 2:51:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 2:39:13 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but are we just discussing whether or not Egypt was full of black people?:

It appears that way.

1. Stupid topic
2. Completely inaccurate
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 2:58:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 2:50:50 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Even with this conclusive Biological evidence confirming that the original ancient Egyptians came from and look like Africans in the Horn (Somalis and Ethiopians) some people still opt to ignore it assert that they were some sort Arabanized hybrid population. Why is this?:

Egyptians are neither Arab nor black... They're more closely akin to Berbers. You are aware that not all Africans look sub-saharan, right?

Actually you're wrong. Conclusive skeletal analysis of early Egyptian remains group them closest to other black Africans:

"Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans." (S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

The populations whom the ancient Egyptians group closest to are black Africans as you can clearly read. Conversely I've not seen one piece of biological evidence supporting that the ancient Egyptians were ethnically he closest to Berbers. If you have a study then please present it. If you can't then your point is moot.

Also the Sahara desert is not nor has it ever been some impenetrable boarder blocking black Africans from the North, as recent genetic evidence finds that it was Sub Saharan East Africans who originally populated Northern Africa.
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:01:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 2:51:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:39:13 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but are we just discussing whether or not Egypt was full of black people?:

It appears that way.

1. Stupid topic
2. Completely inaccurate

Funny you completely bypass two peer reviewed scientific article which conclusively state that Egypt was originally populated by Africans populations from the south, just to state that my stance is inaccurate. If you can't refute my evidence then it's apparent that you're arguing out of spite.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:02:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 2:51:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:39:13 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but are we just discussing whether or not Egypt was full of black people?:

It appears that way.

1. Stupid topic
2. Completely inaccurate

Yeah pretty much have to go with this. Everyone can go back in thier geneology far enough to say they were royalty or such. The reality is that all that matters is the relative of yours TODAY than makes you shake your head and go... "whaaa?"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:02:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.:

Sure, on account that Egypt is located on the continent of Africa. But I'm sure you'd agree that there is a difference between Libyans and Somali's regardless of them both being African.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:04:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.

You're missing the point, we must know that the color of their skin, it's vitally important so we can erase racism.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:05:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:04:51 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.

You're missing the point, we must know that the color of their skin, it's vitally important so we can erase racism.

Bingo!
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:06:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:02:44 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.:

Sure, on account that Egypt is located on the continent of Africa. But I'm sure you'd agree that there is a difference between Libyans and Somali's regardless of them both being African.

Somalis are Horn Africans and according to the article exert (the entire article was posted on page one) the earliest ancient Egyptians exhibited a phenotype most similar to modern day Horn Africans like Somalis. Hell even this french study from the early 90's confirms that fact:

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

Why are you having such a hard time accepting biological facts which indicate their phenotype?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:06:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:04:51 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.

You're missing the point, we must know that the color of their skin, it's vitally important so we can erase racism.

That's what had my eyebrow raised.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:21:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
the Sahara desert is not nor has it ever been some impenetrable boarder blocking black Africans from the North, as recent genetic evidence finds that it was Sub Saharan East Africans who originally populated Northern Africa.:

As with most civilizations living in close proximity to one another, there undoubtedly were instances of racial mixing. This was also documented ad hoc on numerous fresco's found in tombs, and the intended allusion there was to distinguish different races acting in unison in northern Africa. The anatomical differences between sub-saharans and Egyptians should be fairly obvious, even though I agree with the opening remarks that race is a nebulous term from a scientific perspective.

http://www.catchpenny.org...

Ultimately the argument often hinges upon an overly romanticized afrocentric or eurocentric viewpoint, when in reality it's somewhere in between.

But I can tell you that the difference between the haploid groups between sub-saharan, black Africans is notably different than Egyptians, even though Egyptians themselves are often extremely nuanced.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com...

But honestly, what do you care either way? What's your motive in all this?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:33:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:21:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
the Sahara desert is not nor has it ever been some impenetrable boarder blocking black Africans from the North, as recent genetic evidence finds that it was Sub Saharan East Africans who originally populated Northern Africa.:

As with most civilizations living in close proximity to one another, there undoubtedly were instances of racial mixing. This was also documented ad hoc on numerous fresco's found in tombs, and the intended allusion there was to distinguish different races acting in unison in northern Africa. The anatomical differences between sub-saharans and Egyptians should be fairly obvious, even though I agree with the opening remarks that race is a nebulous term from a scientific perspective.

http://www.catchpenny.org...

Ultimately the argument often hinges upon an overly romanticized afrocentric or eurocentric viewpoint, when in reality it's somewhere in between.

But I can tell you that the difference between the haploid groups between sub-saharan, black Africans is notably different than Egyptians, even though Egyptians themselves are often extremely nuanced.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com...

But honestly, what do you care either way? What's your motive in all this?

Dude you are completely ignoring the mainstream scholarship that has been presented in this thread. You asserted that the ancient Egyptians looked like Berbers (who have no uniform look as they vary greatly in phenotype depending on what part of Northern Africa that they located) without presenting a lick of scientific evidence to back your claim. I've presented two peer reviewed articles detailing the population history of ancient Egypt and yet you've chose to sheild your eyes. Below is a statement from the Oxford Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt (wrote by an Afrocentric critic BTW)

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

and

"must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)

This is yet another source which completely refutes your claim that the ancient Egyptians exhibited a different phenotype from more southerly African populations. If you can't refute this finding then your argument is moot.
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:35:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:06:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:04:51 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.

You're missing the point, we must know that the color of their skin, it's vitally important so we can erase racism.

That's what had my eyebrow raised.

It's more so an attempt on my part to inform people who are ignorant of this fact (as some clearly are). I've presented mainstream biological evidence which they have yet to address, yet their denial persist (isn't that called ignorance hmm).
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:38:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Once again the very first post in this thread, contains a conclusive peer reviewed article supporting my stance. Why are some of you all bypassing this information which you cannot refute just to make baseless claims to the contrary?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:38:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:35:29 PM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:06:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:04:51 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.

You're missing the point, we must know that the color of their skin, it's vitally important so we can erase racism.

That's what had my eyebrow raised.

It's more so an attempt on my part to inform people who are ignorant of this fact (as some clearly are). I've presented mainstream biological evidence which they have yet to address, yet their denial persist (isn't that called ignorance hmm).

It's the same as saying ancient Egyptians had HUGE pinky toes... who cares?
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:41:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:21:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
the Sahara desert is not nor has it ever been some impenetrable boarder blocking black Africans from the North, as recent genetic evidence finds that it was Sub Saharan East Africans who originally populated Northern Africa.:

As with most civilizations living in close proximity to one another, there undoubtedly were instances of racial mixing. This was also documented ad hoc on numerous fresco's found in tombs, and the intended allusion there was to distinguish different races acting in unison in northern Africa. The anatomical differences between sub-saharans and Egyptians should be fairly obvious, even though I agree with the opening remarks that race is a nebulous term from a scientific perspective.

http://www.catchpenny.org...

Ultimately the argument often hinges upon an overly romanticized afrocentric or eurocentric viewpoint, when in reality it's somewhere in between.

But I can tell you that the difference between the haploid groups between sub-saharan, black Africans is notably different than Egyptians, even though Egyptians themselves are often extremely nuanced.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com...

But honestly, what do you care either way? What's your motive in all this?

PS race mixing did indeed occur (as my article indicates), but in Egypt's beginnings the population was uniform (also stated in the same article) exhibiting a phenotype like more southerly African populations (blacks).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:42:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:38:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:35:29 PM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:06:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:04:51 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.

You're missing the point, we must know that the color of their skin, it's vitally important so we can erase racism.

That's what had my eyebrow raised.

It's more so an attempt on my part to inform people who are ignorant of this fact (as some clearly are). I've presented mainstream biological evidence which they have yet to address, yet their denial persist (isn't that called ignorance hmm).

It's the same as saying ancient Egyptians had HUGE pinky toes... who cares?

In all fairness, there are several people on this forum who would claim that people with huge pinky toes aren't smart enough to build the egyptian empire, further proving the inferiority of those with large pinky toes.

Now, if we could get rid of THOSE people, then pinky toes really wouldn't matter.
SirShawn
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:43:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:38:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:35:29 PM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:06:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:04:51 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.

You're missing the point, we must know that the color of their skin, it's vitally important so we can erase racism.

That's what had my eyebrow raised.

It's more so an attempt on my part to inform people who are ignorant of this fact (as some clearly are). I've presented mainstream biological evidence which they have yet to address, yet their denial persist (isn't that called ignorance hmm).

It's the same as saying ancient Egyptians had HUGE pinky toes... who cares?

When I'm on a forum and there are topics that I do not particularly care about then I tend to not post in them, rather than post that I don't care about the topic.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:58:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:43:16 PM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:38:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:35:29 PM, SirShawn wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:06:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:04:51 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/6/2011 2:57:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Perhaps they taught me wrong in school, but I recall Egypt being filled with Africans.

You're missing the point, we must know that the color of their skin, it's vitally important so we can erase racism.

That's what had my eyebrow raised.

It's more so an attempt on my part to inform people who are ignorant of this fact (as some clearly are). I've presented mainstream biological evidence which they have yet to address, yet their denial persist (isn't that called ignorance hmm).

It's the same as saying ancient Egyptians had HUGE pinky toes... who cares?

When I'm on a forum and there are topics that I do not particularly care about then I tend to not post in them, rather than post that I don't care about the topic.

Thanks for adding your snarky relativism to the discussion.