posted 31 March 2003 12:43 AM            

My point is some Egyptian at least from what I seen in tombs, looked very black, especially Queen Tiye was a full-blooded African. Her son,
Akhenaton and his wife Nefertiti also ruled Egypt.
King Tutankhamen was the son of Akhenaton and Nefertiti. How can anyone say that Egyptians were not negroid which is the same as black.

I have seen arabic people, who are dark and have some kinky hair, but they don't look negroid. I have even seen some southern Italians that also have kinky hair, but still not negroid looking. Modern Greeks have not changed much from Ancient Greeks, neither did Ancient Egyptians. Some were light, some were mixed and some were black. This is still the mixture in Egyptian, including Northern Egypt.

Black is not a negative word. I call myself mixed, but if someone wants to call me black or white it would not bother me, but to call me white would not be a term that 99% of the world would use. Take most mixed Egyptians out of Egypt and put them in Europe and they would be called black. Not egyptian.

Anthropologist, Count Constantine de Volney (1727-1820), spoke about the race of the Egyptians that produced the Pharaohs. He later paid tribute to Herodotus' discovery when he said, "The ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood mixed for several centuries with that of the Romans and Greeks, must have lost the intensity of it's original color, while retaining none the less the imprint of it's original mold. We can even state as a general principle that the face (referring to The Sphinx) is a kind of monument able, in many cases, to attest to or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of the people."

Here is an interesting article
From Post
http://kinghorus.tripod.com/Egypt.html
What do you think?

In 1966 Michael Crichton, a brilliant pre-med student, did a thesis on the late Naqqada period crania of Upper Egypt. This is the same Michael Crichton, by the way, whom would later go on to write the book Jurassic Park! He studied crania from the exact same cemetery Brace got his samples from. But unlike Brace, rather than finding them strongly Europoid with only minor Northeast African tendencies, Crichton found the crania to posses distinctly Negroid characteristics and he found them to cluster near Africans than Europeans. [Crichton, Michael. "A Multiple Discriminate Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania," Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology 57:45-67] The difference between Crichton and Brace, lay in the sameples they chose as the "standard" for Africans. Brace made all European crania equally European, while hypocritically not making all African crania equally African. He took samples from Benin, Tanzania, and Gabon (all countries where people tend to resemble the "True Negro"), and presented them as "genuine African", while assuming Northeast Africans and East Africans weren't equally African. Thus, the African sample split into two groups. True Negroes whom he labelled "Sub-Saharan" and Northeast Africans; namely Somalians, Bronze Age Nubians, and Christian Nubians. Thus his predynastic Upper Egyptian sample hovered between the Northeast African sample and the European one. Crichton on the other hand, unlike Brace, assumed Northeast Africans and East Africans to be as equally genuinely African as the True Negro. He used the Teita people of Kenya (a Nilotic peoples) as the particular cluster to compare his Naqqada crania with. He found the Naqqada sample to cluster very close to the Teita sample, and to show very strong affinities with them. Thus, Crichton found a definite strong Negroid character to the exact same Naqqada crania, Brace found very little in. Thus, we see they were definitely Negroid.

Nonetheless it is during the early part of this period (4250 B.C.) that the Egyptians begin using the 365-day Solar Calendar. The same solar calendar which is the direct ancestor of the very calendar used by us today. And during the later Naqqada period, we see Egyptian Hierogliphics in use. The Osirin religion, the Egyptian priesthood, and the institution of Pharaoh, all had their roots in predynastic Naqqada Upper Egypt. Mind you, the peoples of predynastic Lower Egypt were whites of Mediterranean and Proto-Nordic stock, having affinities with [white]Libyans to the northwest of Egypt. These were pastoralist tribes. The peoples of Upper Egypt during the predynastic period were a different stock. This is noted by G.M Morant, whom did a comprehensive study on Dynastic and Predynastic Egyptian crania. As cited by John R. Baker (whom is a very right wing anthropologist with racist leanings), in the north he [Morant] found a predominant "Mediterranean" element, in the south he discovered the same thing. Only the population sample from Upper Egypt had black admixture to varying degrees. Thus confirming that the peoples of Upper Egypt were distinctly Negroid. He also finds out that the further we get into the Dynastic period, the less distinctive the crania from Lower and Upper Egypt are, until they evidently fused together. [Baker, John R. Race, p. 519] And lastly, Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, who was a professor of Anatomy at Cairo's Egyptian Museum in the early 1900's, studied many bodies and skeletons of predynastic and Dynastic Egyptians. His findings revealed that these peoples had an "effeminate and frail build, poorly developed eyebrows, small broad noses and slight prognathism." That to anyone this sounds like typical Negroid characteristics.

As for the 1st dynasty, it is interesting to note that Dr. S.O.Y. Keita who studied their remains found a definite Sudanic cast of features among them. Of this Keita states:

"The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results." [Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern African, p. 40]

posted 31 March 2003 01:23 AM            

The first three dyansties,which paved the way for the pyramid age was founded by Upper egyptians from nekhen so in all odds they were dark skinned and had tightly curled hair.

The point is that ancient kmt was a African culture with a multiracial soceity. The early kemtians were probally negriod especially Upper egyptians were the foundation of kemetian culture came from. Lower egyptians were more mixed than the more homgenous Upper Egyptians. Once the kingdom was united by aha menes both Upper and Lowert Egyptians mixed and became Egyptians.

reference

The mid-twentieth Egyptologist Alan Gardiner, who was considered an
authority on the ancient civilization of Kemet, gave the following
report on the human remains of the pre-dynastic Badarians, Amratians,
and Gerzeans:

posted 31 March 2003 01:56 AM            

What are your feeling on Michael Crichton and his findings?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
The 12th dyansty was founded by a half nubian,and Upper Egyptian named Amenemhet. The 12th dyansty was one of the best dyansties in existance of kemtian history.

The first three dyansties,which paved the way for the pyramid age was founded by Upper egyptians from nekhen so in all odds they were dark skinned and had tightly curled hair.

The point is that ancient kmt was a African culture with a multiracial soceity. The early kemtians were probally negriod especially Upper egyptians were the foundation of kemetian culture came from. Lower egyptians were more mixed than the more homgenous Upper Egyptians. Once the kingdom was united by aha menes both Upper and Lowert Egyptians mixed and became Egyptians.

reference

The mid-twentieth Egyptologist Alan Gardiner, who was considered an
authority on the ancient civilization of Kemet, gave the following
report on the human remains of the pre-dynastic Badarians, Amratians,
and Gerzeans:

"These... were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and
below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be
observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to
describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock,
a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear
on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966)

---

posted 31 March 2003 10:42 AM            

nearly 200 years ago, champollion the younger decided solved the "black people could never have done this" problem by saying that the egyptians were not black, but caucasian. up until that point they were black.

when the challenge was mounted that these people were black, the stance began to change slightly. now they are not caucasian, but they are not black. they're mediterranean or some kind of hybrid or whatever. so it is still ok to use white actors to portray egyptians, but not black actors.

the point is, at one time, nearly all westerners considered all africans black. remember the word negro means black, referring to skin color. then when it became useful to westerners to change the definition of black to disinclude the egyptians, they did so. this shouldn't come as a suprise to any african or african descendent. but what's surprising is that we all followed suit.

now they say black people are no longer characterized by their skin color, but by their noses and lips. that's like saying a tall person is no longer characterized by his height. so now people run out and try to prove that egyptians were "black" african in the new sense of the word black. this is ridiculous. what happens when the definition of black african is changed again?

i think everyone on this board knows that i believe the egyptians were black people. but when i say that, i mean they would be considered black in europe and in the americas today. but the truth is, they way black is defined in terms of ancient egyptians, many africans all over the continent would no longer qualify as black people. i've seen plenty of africans that do not have wide noses or big lips, but there's no question that these are black people. i myself have fair skin. i'm actually lighter than nefertiti's, but here in the states, there is no question that i am a black man.

posted 31 March 2003 12:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
i hate to beat a dead horse but these discussions are becoming numerous and i'm a little worried about how we are perceiving these people.

nearly 200 years ago, champollion the younger decided solved the "black people could never have done this" problem by saying that the egyptians were not black, but caucasian. up until that point they were black.

when the challenge was mounted that these people were black, the stance began to change slightly. now they are not caucasian, but they are not black. they're mediterranean or some kind of hybrid or whatever. so it is still ok to use white actors to portray egyptians, but not black actors.

the point is, at one time, nearly all westerners considered all africans black. remember the word negro means black, referring to skin color. then when it became useful to westerners to change the definition of black to disinclude the egyptians, they did so. this shouldn't come as a suprise to any african or african descendent. but what's surprising is that we all followed suit.

now they say black people are no longer characterized by their skin color, but by their noses and lips. that's like saying a tall person is no longer characterized by his height. so now people run out and try to prove that egyptians were "black" african in the new sense of the word black. this is ridiculous. what happens when the definition of black african is changed again?

i think everyone on this board knows that i believe the egyptians were black people. but when i say that, i mean they would be considered black in europe and in the americas today. but the truth is, they way black is defined in terms of ancient egyptians, many africans all over the continent would no longer qualify as black people. i've seen plenty of africans that do not have wide noses or big lips, but there's no question that these are black people. i myself have fair skin. i'm actually lighter than nefertiti's, but here in the states, there is no question that i am a black man.

i don't care what anyone says now. there has been too much evidence that shows that the ancient egyptians were african people. and not very much different from other africans at the time. that's enough for me.

---

posted 31 March 2003 12:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kemet:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bayside:
[B]Ancient Egyptians were not white, nor were they true negroid.

Kemet Writes: Most Africans don't fit the "true negro" type. Nelson Mandela is certainly African, yet not a "true negro".

---

Not to mention the Oromo, Somali, etc.

posted 16 April 2003 09:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by imhotep:
Not to mention the Oromo, Somali, etc.

Indeed Kemet, not all Africans fit the 'true
negro' type.
http://www.nmafa.si.edu/exhibits/focus/tutsi.html
http://www2.minorisa.es/inshuti/etnies.jpg

---

oromo and Somali are heavily mixed.

Oromo and Amhara of Ethiopia
American Journal of Human Biology
Volume 8, Issue 4, 1996. Pages: 505-516

An anthropogenetic study on the Oromo and Amhara of central Ethiopia

Marco Tartaglia *, Giuseppina Scano, Gian Franco De Stefano
Dipartimento di Biologia, Universitą degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata, Via della Ricerca Scientifica, 00133 Rome, Italy

Abstract
Blood samples from members of the Oromo and Amhara ethnic groups of central Ethiopia were tested for 10 erythrocyte protein systems: ACP1, ADA, AK1, CA2, ESD, G6PD, GLO1, HB, PGD, and PGM1. Differences between the two samples were relatively slight and not statistically significant. Gene frequency distributions were then analyzed in the context of the genetics of the African and Arabian peoples. Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn. Admixture between Europoid and Negritic populations seems to have been the main microevolutionary factor in generating the present day Cushitic (and Semitic)-speaking group of eastern Africa. The results are consistent with the hypothesis, supported by historical and linguistic evidence, for a common origin of these groups from a Cushitic-speaking group living in eastern Africa. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Y chromosomes of Somalis
Another study confirming the essentially atypical character of Somalis, who are again found to be intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africans and non-Africans.

Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins

S. A. Tishkoff et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet., 67:901-925, 2000

Abstract Two dinucleotide short tandem-repeat polymorphisms (STRPs) and a polymorphic Alu element spanning a 22-kb region of the PLAT locus on chromosome 8p12-q11.2 were typed in 1,2871,420 individuals originating from 30 geographically diverse human populations, as well as in 29 great apes. These data were analyzed as haplotypes consisting of each of the dinucleotide repeats and the flanking Alu insertion/deletion polymorphism. The global pattern of STRP/Alu haplotype variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) is informative for the reconstruction of human evolutionary history. Sub-Saharan African populations have high levels of haplotype diversity within and between populations, relative to non-Africans, and have highly divergent patterns of LD. Non-African populations have both a subset of the haplotype diversity present in Africa and a distinct pattern of LD. The pattern of haplotype variation and LD observed at the PLAT locus suggests a recent common ancestry of non-African populations, from a small population originating in eastern Africa. These data indicate that, throughout much of modern human history, sub-Saharan Africa has maintained both a large effective population size and a high level of population substructure. Additionally, Papua New Guinean and Micronesian populations have rare haplotypes observed otherwise only in African populations, suggesting ancient gene flow from Africa into Papua New Guinea, as well as gene flow between Melanesian and Micronesian populations.

...

"In general, African populations have low frequencies of the Alu(+) allele, in the range of .18.38, with the exception of the Wolof (.44) and the Somali (.47). "

...

"In general, populations cluster by geographic origin. The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African that is, the Ethiopian and Somali populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations. "

posted 16 April 2003 11:48 AM            

1996,is before even cavilini sfoza. The study does not comment on when adm,ixture between cushic people and semetic people happened.

Cavilini Sfoza found ethiopians mainly amharan to be 30 percent caucasoid,but thisd does not apply to Somalians or Oromo.

Oromo are darker than amharan and look way different form them Phenotypically.

Show me and up to date source,and stop copying and pasting from some Source that Dienkes gave you on racial myths.

Costal Somalians do have slight arab admixture,but this is very recent.

Oromo are the oldest people in eastern Africa,and they have not mixed very much with Southern Arabians.

Ethiopian civlization originates with agricultural people in entreia,not the amharan,who are admixture between agnew cuchic speakers and Sabean yemanites.

Aksumite architecture is indigenous,not Sabean.

By the way Y chromosome studies are only as good as the populations they test and what samples they test it against to dtermine genetic distance.

You can pull any study out,but remeber Cavilini Sfoza said ethiopians only have 30 percent caucasoid admixture.

Fulani in Western Africa have minimal caucasoid admixture,but guess what barley enough to effect their phenotype. The Fulani have a similar phenotype to ethiopians,and similar nasal indexes also.

You have to prove that afro asiatic speakers started out as caucasoid,which all evidence points that they did not.

This would mean that Hausa,which speak chadic,and other groups such as Oromo started off as caucasoid.

One of the founders of the hamitic myth whose name is Carl seligman suggested that Bantus,who generally fit the true negro phenotype tend to have narrower noses showed caucasoid admixture.

posted 16 April 2003 01:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CoMmOn_SeNsE!!:
oromo and Somali are heavily mixed.

Oromo and Amhara of Ethiopia
American Journal of Human Biology
Volume 8, Issue 4, 1996. Pages: 505-516

An anthropogenetic study on the Oromo and Amhara of central Ethiopia

Marco Tartaglia *, Giuseppina Scano, Gian Franco De Stefano
Dipartimento di Biologia, Universitą degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata, Via della Ricerca Scientifica, 00133 Rome, Italy

Abstract
Blood samples from members of the Oromo and Amhara ethnic groups of central Ethiopia were tested for 10 erythrocyte protein systems: ACP1, ADA, AK1, CA2, ESD, G6PD, GLO1, HB, PGD, and PGM1. Differences between the two samples were relatively slight and not statistically significant. Gene frequency distributions were then analyzed in the context of the genetics of the African and Arabian peoples. Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn. Admixture between Europoid and Negritic populations seems to have been the main microevolutionary factor in generating the present day Cushitic (and Semitic)-speaking group of eastern Africa. The results are consistent with the hypothesis, supported by historical and linguistic evidence, for a common origin of these groups from a Cushitic-speaking group living in eastern Africa. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Y chromosomes of Somalis
Another study confirming the essentially atypical character of Somalis, who are again found to be intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africans and non-Africans.

Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins

S. A. Tishkoff et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet., 67:901-925, 2000

Abstract Two dinucleotide short tandem-repeat polymorphisms (STRPs) and a polymorphic Alu element spanning a 22-kb region of the PLAT locus on chromosome 8p12-q11.2 were typed in 1,2871,420 individuals originating from 30 geographically diverse human populations, as well as in 29 great apes. These data were analyzed as haplotypes consisting of each of the dinucleotide repeats and the flanking Alu insertion/deletion polymorphism. The global pattern of STRP/Alu haplotype variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) is informative for the reconstruction of human evolutionary history. Sub-Saharan African populations have high levels of haplotype diversity within and between populations, relative to non-Africans, and have highly divergent patterns of LD. Non-African populations have both a subset of the haplotype diversity present in Africa and a distinct pattern of LD. The pattern of haplotype variation and LD observed at the PLAT locus suggests a recent common ancestry of non-African populations, from a small population originating in eastern Africa. These data indicate that, throughout much of modern human history, sub-Saharan Africa has maintained both a large effective population size and a high level of population substructure. Additionally, Papua New Guinean and Micronesian populations have rare haplotypes observed otherwise only in African populations, suggesting ancient gene flow from Africa into Papua New Guinea, as well as gene flow between Melanesian and Micronesian populations.

...

"In general, African populations have low frequencies of the Alu(+) allele, in the range of .18.38, with the exception of the Wolof (.44) and the Somali (.47). "

...

"In general, populations cluster by geographic origin. The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African that is, the Ethiopian and Somali populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations. "

---

Kemet Writes: Most people are mixed with something. Yoruba are mixed, Swahili are mixed, so what! Greeks, Portugues, even the English have SOME African genetic markers. This means nothing! The whole genetic thing hasn't really been worked out yet. I remeber just last year Sforza was claiming back migrations to Africa from Asia. Now he seems to be backing away from this and his collegues are claiming out migration of the Afro-Asiatic speakers as the source of the so-called "Semetic/Arabic" genetic codes. We have been through this before on here.

posted 16 April 2003 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kemet:
Kemet Writes: Most people are mixed with something. Yoruba are mixed, Swahili are mixed, so what! Greeks, Portugues, even the English have SOME African genetic markers. This means nothing! The whole genetic thing hasn't really been worked out yet. I remeber just last year Sforza was claiming back migrations to Africa from Asia. Now he seems to be backing away from this and his collegues are claiming out migration of the Afro-Asiatic speakers as the source of the so-called "Semetic/Arabic" genetic codes. We have been through this before on here.

---

posted 16 April 2003 02:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
There is a problem with that study,because it is dated to 1996.

---

Why, whats happened since then in these populations?

[quotes]1996,is before even cavilini sfoza. The study does not comment on when adm,ixture between cushic people and semetic people happened.[/quote]

but regardless of when it happened, it did, so they are not "pure" "negroid" so do you disagree that their phenotype has not changed since they are mixed

quote:

---

Cavilini Sfoza found ethiopians mainly amharan to be 30 percent caucasoid,but thisd does not apply to Somalians or Oromo.

---

Ok, but this study is not by sfroza.

quote:

---

Oromo are darker than amharan and look way different form them Phenotypically.

---

well maybe they are less mixed, but still mixed to a significant degree to comment about it.

quote:

---

Show me and up to date source

---

you post keita studies that were done in the early 90's that study was done in 96 there is nothing old about it, if you can find a more recent study on these people , I suggest you post it.

quote:

---

and stop copying and pasting from some Source that Dienkes gave you on racial myths.

---

according to who?

[quoteBy the way Y chromosome studies are only as good as the populations they test and what samples they test it against to dtermine genetic distance.[/quote]

No, but those studies can explain a more caucasoid looking phenotype to other Africans.

quote:

---

You can pull any study out,but remeber Cavilini Sfoza said ethiopians only have 30 percent caucasoid admixture.

---

[quoteFulani in Western Africa have minimal caucasoid admixture,but guess what barley enough to effect their phenotype. The Fulani have a similar phenotype to ethiopians,and similar nasal indexes also.[/quote]
fulani's have 18%caucasoid ad-mixture, that would create some alterations. Also most fulani's I've seen don't look remotely caucasoid.

quote:

---

You have to prove that afro asiatic speakers started out as caucasoid,which all evidence points that they did not.

---

No, there is nothing to prove, all I stated was that somali's are heavily mixed that has nothing to do with how they started off. If they are pure or have only small amounts of arabian blood then you should have no trouble finding numerous studies showing me this.

posted 16 April 2003 11:09 PM            

We are talking Semantics,the key is to establish when caucasoid admixturew began. I can gurantee it did not occur during the Neolithic times,when the Afro asiatic languages spread. of course during medevil times,there was contact with Southern Arabia,and thus some admixture,but just the amharan,not the entire ethiopian including the Oromo.

''Ok, but this study is not by sfroza.''
The study by Sfoza is older than the study by the person you posted,and he only gives 30 p[ercent admixture and he mostly uses the samples of the amharan,not Oromo.

''well maybe they are less mixed, but still mixed to a significant degree to comment about it.''
Still the Oromo are darker than many Western Africans,and I dount the admixture is as great as the study posted.

''you post keita studies that were done in the early 90's that study was done in 96 there is nothing old about it, if you can find a more recent study on these people , I suggest you post it.''

There are some Keita abstracts that at back to the early 90's,but majority of them date to at least 1998.

''fulani's have 18%caucasoid ad-mixture, that would create some alterations. Also most fulani's I've seen don't look remotely caucasoid. ''

Not so,most studies only estaimte Fulani had 5 percent admixture,this is another racial myths statistic,which they posted on their web site just recently.

Mtdna has also shown that many gulf arabs have 15 percent negriod admixture,but it appears it has not alterted their phenotype too much.
''No, there is nothing to prove, all I stated was that somali's are heavily mixed that has nothing to do with how they started off. If they are pure or have only small amounts of arabian blood then you should have no trouble finding numerous studies showing me this.''

Provew neolithic Somalian populations are caucasoid,and prove it is over 50 percentage,which you probally cannot.

THe flaw in your study is that it did not show if the arabian gene flow was recent,or goes back in antiquity.

posted 16 April 2003 11:18 PM            

on the fulani

posted 17 April 2003 03:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

We are talking Semantics,the key is to establish when caucasoid admixturew began. I can gurantee it did not occur during the Neolithic times,when the Afro asiatic languages spread. of course during medevil times,there was contact with Southern Arabia,and thus some admixture,but just the amharan,not the entire ethiopian including the Oromo.

---

No, but that was not my intensions of posting the study, all I'm saying is that the amount of arabian blood they have is more then enough to altar their phenotype. Also If that is the case I'm sure you will be able to show me a study saying that they became mixed after neothilic times

quote:

---

Still the Oromo are darker than many Western Africans,and I dount the admixture is as great as the study posted.

---

Well, prove it

quote:

---

There are some Keita abstracts that at back to the early 90's,but majority of them date to at least 1998.

---

The majority of studies i've seen are in the early 90's, also there are 2 years between 96 and 98.

quote:

---

Not so,most studies only estaimte Fulani had 5 percent admixture,this is another racial myths statistic,which they posted on their web site just recently.

---

no, it was carried out by a nigerian university, the percentage was not made up or an estimate. Besides as I have said before most fulanis don't look remotly caucasoid.

quote:

---

Mtdna has also shown that many gulf arabs have 15 percent negriod admixture,but it appears it has not alterted their phenotype too much.

---

Well, thats more then Egypt according to the 2003 study. Also most arabs are just brown skined if they are too pale they have significant European blood like the lebanese and if they are to dark brown they have black blood it's easy to spot them out. I also believe there would b regional variation in arab countries.

Y-chromosome Haplotypes in Egypt

to appear in American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Brief communication: Y-chromosome haplotypes in Egypt
G. Lucotte *, G. Mercier
International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France

ABSTRACT

We analyzed Y-chromosome haplotypes in the Nile River Valley in Egypt in 274 unrelated males, using the p49a,f TaqI polymorphism. These individuals were born in three regions along the river: in Alexandria (the Delta and Lower Egypt), in Upper Egypt, and in Lower Nubia. Fifteen different p49a,f TaqI haplotypes are present in Egypt, the three most common being haplotype V (39.4%), haplotype XI (18.9%), and haplotype IV (13.9%). Haplotype V is a characteristic Arab haplotype, with a northern geographic distribution in Egypt in the Nile River Valley. Haplotype IV, characteristic of sub-Saharan populations, shows a southern geographic distribution in Egypt. Am J Phys Anthropol 121:000-000, 2003. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

quote:

---

[Provew neolithic Somalian populations are caucasoid,and prove it is over 50 percentage,which you probally cannot.

---

Huh, for what I've proven somalian's are not pure and caucasoid blood has certainly altard their phenotype, why don't you prove they don't have significan't amounts of caucasoid blood then you can say that their phenotype is just an example of variation in Africa rather then the result of heavy ad-mixture.

quote:

---

THe flaw in your study is that it did not show if the arabian gene flow was recent,or goes back in antiquity.

---

Nope, but it shows their mixed, my intensions for posting the study was to demontsrate that the only reason why they have this phenotype is because of the significant amounts of caucasoid blood they have which would have certain changed their phenotype, I have proven my point.

posted 17 April 2003 09:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CoMmOn_SeNsE!!:
I agree that everyone has certain levels of foreign blood, but there is a big difference between an English person with about 2% black and asian genes and an ethiopian who is 40% or more caucasoid.

---

I noticed that you overlooked my statement on these so-called "Caucusoid" genes actually coming from NE Africa to SW Asia. Please read this more recent study:

"Near Eastern languages came from Africa 10,000 years ago"
Investigator: Ene Metspalu
by Laura Spinney

Analysis of thousands of mitochondrial DNA samples has led Estonian
archeogeneticists to the origins of Arabic. Ene Metspalu of the Department of
Evolutionary Biology at Tartu University and the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu,
claims to have evidence that the Arab-Berber languages of the Near and Middle
East came out of East Africa around 10,000 years ago. She has found evidence
for what may have been the last sizeable migration out of Africa before the
slave trade. Genetic markers transmitted through either the maternal or
paternal line have been used to trace the great human migrations since Homo
sapiens emerged in Africa. But attempts to trace the evolution of languages
have met with less success, partly because of the impact on languages of
untraceable political and economic upheavals.

Metspalu and colleagues analyzed inherited variations in a huge number of
samples - almost 3000 - of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from natives of
the Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, as well as North and East Africa.

mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, and by comparing their data
with existing data on European, Indian, Siberian and other Central Asian
populations, the researchers were able to create a comprehensive phylogenetic
map of maternal lineages diverging from Africa and spreading towards Europe
and Asia.

Working in collaboration with language specialists, they found that this
movement 10,000 years ago, which was probably centred on Ethiopia, could well
have been responsible for seeding the Afro-Asiatic language from which all
modern Arab-Berber languages are descended.

"This language was spoken in Africa 10,000 or 12,000 years ago," Metspalu
told BioMedNet News. "We think it was around that time that carriers brought
these Afro-Asiatic languages to the Near East." The language, or its
derivatives, later spread much further afield.

What could have triggered the movement she can only speculate. One
possibility is that increasing desertification was causing famine in Africa
and driving hunters further afield in search of animals.

Interestingly, the lineages they traced through this 10,000-year-old
migration didn't seem to get much further north than modern-day Syria or east
of modern-day Iraq. There is no evidence of the lineages in the mtDNA of
people from Turkey or Iran, says Metspalu.

"We can't understand why this boundary [to the Arab-Berber speaking world] is
so sharp," she said. "They came out of Africa, and when they reached Turkey
they just stopped." She believes some kind of physical boundary, now
vanished, must have impeded them.

The same genetic detective work has confirmed archeological evidence that the
biggest movement out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago - which is
when Africans first settled in other continents - and that it originated in a
small East African population. http://news.bmn.com/conferences/list/view?rp=2002-ESHG-4-S3

posted 17 April 2003 09:56 AM            

1) Phenotype and Geneotype do not allways correspond

2) A baseline range of indiginous Holocene NE African genetic markers has yet to be established

3) Therefore many genetic markers deemed "caucasoid" are actually African to begin with

4) Sub-Saharan Africa is a stereotypical concept. "Sub-Saharan" literally means "south of the sahara". The climactic zone south of the Sahara is the Sahel. Interestingly enough in most of these studies very few sample populations come from this zone. I wonder why?

5) Instead of viewing the Arabs and Berbers as an outgrowth of the Somali/Beja/Ethiopian types they reverse this concept and therefore come up with stereotypical genetic results.

posted 17 April 2003 10:14 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kemet:
The bottom line is most of these genetic studies are flawed in construction. Here is why:

1) Phenotype and Geneotype do not allways correspond

2) A baseline range of indiginous Holocene NE African genetic markers has yet to be established

3) Therefore many genetic markers deemed "caucasoid" are actually African to begin with

4) Sub-Saharan Africa is a stereotypical concept. "Sub-Saharan" literally means "south of the sahara". The climactic zone south of the Sahara is the Sahel. Interestingly enough in most of these studies very few sample populations come from this zone. I wonder why?

5) Instead of viewing the Arabs and Berbers as an outgrowth of the Somali/Beja/Ethiopian types they reverse this concept and therefore come up with stereotypical genetic results.

I have noticed on this form that when it is mentioned that the original Egyptians were black Modern Egyptians object. There thinking seems to be this - I am not black, I am a Egyptian, I am related to the Ancient Egyptians, so they couldn't have been black. WRONG! I am black, but I am also related to Europeans and Native Americans (my heritage). These are not mutually exclusive concepts folks.

---

Kemet Writes: Here is a good example of the genetic stereotyping I mentioned. In this abstract from the AJHG they mention Sub-Saharan and Yemen genetic markers as mutually exclusive. They find extensive "Sub-Saharan" genetic markers in Yemenis that date back to THE SLAVE TRADE. On the surface this seems logical. But lets dig deeper. The Arab slave trade into East Africa started with the fall of Aksumite power in the Red Sea during the 7th century.
Yet go to the link below from Fattovich and he states that Horn of Africans have been migrating into Yemen since THE NEOLITHIC! It's obvious that genes deemed "caucasoid" are actually indiginous to the Horn of Africa.

Extensive Female-Mediated Gene Flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Near Eastern Arab Populations

Martin Richards,1 Chiara Rengo,2,3 Fulvio Cruciani,2 Fiona Gratrix,4 James F. Wilson,5 Rosaria Scozzari,2 Vincent Macaulay,6 and Antonio Torroni7

1Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom; 2Dipartimento di Genetica e Biologia Molecolare, Universitą di Roma "La Sapienza," and 3Istituto di Medicina Legale, Universitą Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome; 4Department of Biological Sciences, Imperial College, and 5Department of Biology, University College London, London; 6Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; and 7Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, Universitą di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

Received December 2, 2002; accepted for publication January 21, 2003; electronically published March 10, 2003.

We have analyzed and compared mitochondrial DNA variation of populations from the Near East and Africa and found a very high frequency of African lineages present in the Yemen Hadramawt: more than a third were of clear sub-Saharan origin. Other Arab populations carried 10% lineages of sub-Saharan origin, whereas non-Arab Near Eastern populations, by contrast, carried few or no such lineages, suggesting that gene flow has been preferentially into Arab populations. Several lines of evidence suggest that most of this gene flow probably occurred within the past 2,500 years. In contrast, there is little evidence for male-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa in Y-chromosome haplotypes in Arab populations, including the Hadramawt. Taken together, these results are consistent with substantial migration from eastern Africa into Arabia, at least in part as a result of the Arab slave trade, and mainly female assimilation into the Arabian population as a result of miscegenation and manumission.

NOW GO TO THIS LINK AND READ THE HISTORY OF THE REGION:
http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/afr/projects/BOOK/fattowich.pdf

posted 22 April 2003 09:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
There is a problem with that study,because it is dated to 1996.

Cavilini Sfoza found ethiopians mainly amharan to be 30 percent caucasoid,but thisd does not apply to Somalians or Oromo.

---

posted 22 April 2003 11:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bayside:
What I don't understand if the Human Genome project states that human genome data concludes that the DNA of human beings is 99.9 percent alike, meaning that no matter what the color of our skin, when you look at humans on the genetic level, we are indistinguishable from one another. How does one conclued 30 percent caucasoid.

---

posted 22 April 2003 12:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
no idea. i guess they test based on the remaining .01%.

---

posted 22 April 2003 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bayside:
What I don't understand if the Human Genome project states that human genome data concludes that the DNA of human beings is 99.9 percent alike, meaning that no matter what the color of our skin, when you look at humans on the genetic level, we are indistinguishable from one another. How does one conclued 30 percent caucasoid.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ausar:
[b]There is a problem with that study,because it is dated to 1996.

Cavilini Sfoza found ethiopians mainly amharan to be 30 percent caucasoid,but thisd does not apply to Somalians or Oromo.

---

Bayside: Althought human genome is 99.9% same the 0.01% difference is what makes us individuals and separates one people from another. We seem to be getting the concept of genes confused.

I have seen many posts stating that sometimes genotype and phenotype does not add up. I DISAGREE! I know for a fact that genotype always match with phenotype unless one has a disease that lets say causes one to lose melanin like vetiligo. Vetitigo is an autoimmune disease in which one destroys melanocytes and causes one skin colour to lighten and fade. If we scinentis trace the gene for skin colour we will always find that it matches with phenotype once disease can be ruled out.

My concern is the genes that some scientist are looking at when classifying one race or another. If those scientist were looking for genes that determing skin colour and hair type and bone density they will always find them when looking at genotype. Genotype determines phenotype and if you look the look you have the genes.

But let us not forget that we get one gene from each parent and each gene has 2 alleles. This gives way for one to have a certain number of recessive as well as dominant genes. Black phenotype hence genes are dominant and white phenotype is recessive.

If scinetist were looking for genes that determine phenotype they would with out a doubt know that ancient peoples of Africa and Middle east were very much "Black" or part it.

posted 22 April 2003 06:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
Bayside: Althought human genome is 99.9% same the 0.01% difference is what makes us individuals and separates one people from another. We seem to be getting the concept of genes confused.

I have seen many posts stating that sometimes genotype and phenotype does not add up. I DISAGREE! I know for a fact that genotype always match with phenotype unless one has a disease that lets say causes one to lose melanin like vetiligo. Vetitigo is an autoimmune disease in which one destroys melanocytes and causes one skin colour to lighten and fade. If we scinentis trace the gene for skin colour we will always find that it matches with phenotype once disease can be ruled out.

My concern is the genes that some scientist are looking at when classifying one race or another. If those scientist were looking for genes that determing skin colour and hair type and bone density they will always find them when looking at genotype. Genotype determines phenotype and if you look the look you have the genes.

But let us not forget that we get one gene from each parent and each gene has 2 alleles. This gives way for one to have a certain number of recessive as well as dominant genes. Black phenotype hence genes are dominant and white phenotype is recessive.

If scinetist were looking for genes that determine phenotype they would with out a doubt know that ancient peoples of Africa and Middle east were very much "Black" or part it.

Simplicity is the true sign of a genius. If you "look the look" you have the genes

---

posted 22 April 2003 06:30 PM            

What is the "Black Phenotype" and "White Phenotype".

I'd be real interested in a discription of how Black Pheno-genes are dominent over white Pheno-genes

posted 22 April 2003 06:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:
Keino,

What is the "Black Phenotype" and "White Phenotype".

I'd be real interested in a discription of how Black Pheno-genes are dominent over white Pheno-genes

I'd be even more interested if u can post scientific work that will support that.

---

posted 22 April 2003 07:29 PM            

Basically that web site is a responce to Arthur Kemp's profaganda that was all over the internet.

I agree with that website owner that Southern Europeans have very little if any negriopd admixture,but to say all Northern Africans are like Southern europeans,is misleading.

Usually on message groups they post that site to refute even a little black pressence in Egypt.

The website uses genetic data from an Outdated racist book called John R bAker,and the owner of that site uses unpeerreviwed Carleton S Coon anthropology books,which nobody uses anymore.

posted 22 April 2003 07:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:
Bayside u gotta be kidding, that site perpetuates Myths, It does not explode them.

That site is run by a southern european obssesed with proving how pure white southern europeans and north africans are.

---

posted 22 April 2003 07:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Those people on Racial myth are meddireanocentric,and the one poster on there Dinekes thinks the original Nubians were proto caucasoids.

Basically that web site is a responce to Arthur Kemp's profaganda that was all over the internet.

I agree with that website owner that Southern Europeans have very little if any negriopd admixture,but to say all Northern Africans are like Southern europeans,is misleading.

Usually on message groups they post that site to refute even a little black pressence in Egypt.

The website uses genetic data from an Outdated racist book called John R bAker,and the owner of that site uses unpeerreviwed Carleton S Coon anthropology books,which nobody uses anymore.

---

posted 22 April 2003 07:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bayside:
This site has a lot of information, a lot of the stuff is outdated, but a good place to start.
http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/

---

uh oh. this could get ugly.

btw, yuya should never be used in a argument for "caucasian" egyptians. his daughter was tiye. and straight hair is also not an indicator. most african decendants i know wear their hair straight. it's not a difficult feat to accomplish. in fact, according to the art of kemetians, the so called "black" africans probably straightened their hair too. the only image i've seen of an ancient afro was on the head of an egyptian who seems to be picking fruit.

btw, have you ever seen pics of menes, snefru, kafre, usarkef, etc? they all look like what even an egyptologist would call "black" african. wide noses and all. and there are many more.

it's almost a shame akhenaten's akhemmaat (living in truth) philosophy didn't live longer. throughout the entire amarna period, i've seen only one depiction (nefertiti) of a fair skinned kemetian. everyone else was considerably darker. and no, i wouldn't be surprised if the average kemetian was lighter than other africans nearer to the equator.

posted 22 April 2003 07:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
uh oh. this could get ugly.

btw, yuya should never be used in a argument for "caucasian" egyptians. his daughter was tiye. and straight hair is also not an indicator. most african decendants i know wear their hair straight. it's not a difficult feat to accomplish. in fact, according to the art of kemetians, the so called "black" africans probably straightened their hair too. the only image i've seen of an ancient afro was on the head of an egyptian who seems to be picking fruit.

btw, have you ever seen pics of menes, snefru, kafre, usarkef, etc? they all look like what even an egyptologist would call "black" african. wide noses and all. and there are many more.

it's almost a shame akhenaten's akhemmaat (living in truth) philosophy didn't live longer. throughout the entire amarna period, i've seen only one depiction (nefertiti) of a fair skinned kemetian. everyone else was considerably darker. and no, i wouldn't be surprised if the average kemetian was lighter than other africans nearer to the equator.

i don't really care that some people believe kemetians were caucasian. the thing that bothers me is that all this anti-black african propaganda has taken kmt out of africa, thus hindering our understanding of the people. but if you haven't already done so, i'd suggest going to see an ancient kemetian exibit. people posting pics on the net can be misleading. if i wanted to, i could post the darkest egyptians and say that it's proof that they were black. just like that link you posted did to argue the caucasian origin.

---

posted 22 April 2003 08:27 PM            

Yuya kem au is a foreginer who gained a high position amung the priest hood of Kmt. mummies can not be used as proof the Egyptians were blonde haired,because the embalming soulution turns the hair from their original color.

To get a general understanding of what a mummy hair color was you have to put them under a lenes of a microscope.

Rameses II was tested by a laboratory and found to be a red haired person,which makes sense since his family was form the delta region where much mixing with costal type northern Africans which sometimes have red hair,like the kaybele,Riffian,and other berber groups. Libyans often came into Kmt as mercenaries and this could explain Rameses II,whose ancestors rose up under Horemheb.

Hair of mummies mean absolutley nothing unless they are tested. Bob Brier,the only Egyptologist who has done conclusive reserch on egyptian mummies has verified this.

''it's almost a shame akhenaten's akhemmaat (living in truth) philosophy didn't live longer. throughout the entire amarna period, i've seen only one depiction (nefertiti) of a fair skinned kemetian. everyone else was considerably darker. and no, i wouldn't be surprised if the average kemetian was lighter than other africans nearer to the equator.''

Have you seen Akenaten children though ?? They look black to me.

Nefertiti Kem au was of mixed egyptian and syrian ancestry. Her father Ay was from Upper egypt,while her mother was Syrian.

There were foreign types amung the Native kemetians around this time,at least going back to the 12 dyansty,when a large influx of asiatics begin to settle in places like the delta region and some were even servent for egyptians.

Nefertiti mother was probally one of these people.

By the way kem au there is a post on this forum that details Yuya,and Thuya.

You might want to scroll down and check it out.

posted 23 April 2003 01:52 AM            

http://www.laurushealth.com/HealthNews/reu...ry121620029.htm
Black or white, Brazilians DNA similarly mixed

Last Updated: 2002-12-16 17:00:53 -0400 (Reuters Health)

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Aspects of physical appearance are poor indications of a persons genetic ancestry, according to a new study by Brazilian researchers.

Whether or not one has more European or more African physical attributes, Brazilians in general have genetic profiles that stem from populations of both geographic regions, new study findings show.

First of all, let me stress that the conclusions of this study apply to Brazil, and should not be naively extrapolated to other countries, Dr. Sergio D. J. Pena, the studys lead author, told Reuters Health in an interview.

In their report, Pena and colleagues note that Brazilians are apt to place more emphasis on physical appearance than ancestry and point out that a large survey found fewer than 10% of Brazilian black individuals listed Africa when asked about their ancestry.

We wanted to ascertain to what degree the (social race) of a Brazilian individual was predictive of the degree of genomic African ancestry, the authors write in the December 11th issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. According to Pena, social race refers to a persons skin color and other physical attributes.

The most interesting finding, Pena noted, is that the researchers observed a significant dissociation between genomic geographical ancestry--African versus European--and social race, which was evaluated using multiple physical attributes that included skin pigmentation, color and texture of hair, eye color and shape of nose and lips.

In other words, Brazilian black or white individuals differed very little in their genomic profile, said Pena, who is with the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais in Horizonte, Brazil.

Penas team has been systematically using genomic tools to obtain what they call a molecular portrait of Brazilians, the researcher explained.

The early part of the project involved using genetic markers that are inherited from only one parent: mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the mother, and the Y chromosome--in males--from the father. These markers provide lineage information that is far-reaching into the past and quite specific as to geographical sources, Pena noted.

Our maternal lineage studies found the surprisingly high amount of 33% (indigenous Brazilian) and 28% African contribution to the total mtDNA pool of white Brazilians, Pena told Reuters Health.

We then analyzed paternal lineages and discovered that the vast majority of Y chromosomes in white Brazilian males, regardless of their regional source, is of European origin.

Together, our result configures a picture of strong directional mating in Brazil involving European males and (indigenous Brazilian) and African females that is in excellent consonance with the known history of the peopling of Brazil since 1500.

Lay people and even scientists, Pena added, often confuse color or race with geographical ancestry and use interchangeably terms such as white, Caucasian and European on one hand, and black, Negro or African on the other.

Our study shows how hazardous this practice is, by demonstrating clearly that geographical ancestry and social race evaluated by physical criteria are quite different attributes, and, at least in the case of Brazilians, are in large part dissociated Pena said.

There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist. Races exist only as social constructs that are mutable over time and across social contexts and are sustained by a racial ideology, Pena noted.

posted 23 April 2003 07:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bayside:
Why is my post proof for Caucasian Eygptians?

---

posted 23 April 2003 08:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
"Yuya kem au is a foreginer who gained a high position amung the priest hood of Kmt. mummies can not be used as proof the Egyptians were blonde haired,because the embalming soulution turns the hair from their original color."

i'm aware that yuya was a foreigner. my point was that his child is about as "black" as you can get. so i'd bet that he was "black" too, regardless of whether or not he was native to kmt.

"Rameses II was tested by a laboratory and found to be a red haired person,which makes sense since his family was form the delta region where much mixing with costal type northern Africans which sometimes have red hair,like the kaybele,Riffian,and other berber groups. Libyans often came into Kmt as mercenaries and this could explain Rameses II,whose ancestors rose up under Horemheb."

while ramses 2 had red hair, kent weeks mentioned that this was extremely rare. so it's possible that red hair was scare even in the delta region.

"Have you seen Akenaten children though ?? They look black to me."

yup. one of the better preserved busts of one of his daughters shows this pretty good.

"Nefertiti Kem au was of mixed egyptian and syrian ancestry. Her father Ay was from Upper egypt,while her mother was Syrian."

true, my only point was that nefertiti was the only fair skinned person i've seen from the amarna period. so while i still beleive egypt was in some way a melting pot, at least among the upper classes, nefertiti's skin complexion is not evidence of a "white" race.

---

posted 23 April 2003 08:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bayside:
Just so you all understand that Races is really a social term and to give you a link

http://www.laurushealth.com/HealthNews/reu...ry121620029.htm
[b]Black or white, Brazilians DNA similarly mixed

[/B]

---

posted 23 April 2003 10:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bayside:
Yeah, I know it is a bunch of garbage, but the site has lot of good links. I got this link there
http://www.familytreedna.com/
I want to get the full DNA works for myself.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Obenga:
[b]Bayside u gotta be kidding, that site perpetuates Myths, It does not explode them.

That site is run by a southern european obssesed with proving how pure white southern europeans and north africans are.

---