Provide evidence that Egyptians remained phenotypically the same for five thousand years. A claim which you continue to make without offering evidence, here's your chance.
You get first move Posted by Ekiti-Parapo (Member # 6729) on :
^ WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!! Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
A few things to be going on with.
Point 1. No historical evidence for a mass migration out of Egypt. Abundant evidence for ethnic continuity, especially into Coptic Christian community, who preserve among other things the language of the ancients, albeit with a Greek-based alphabet. If they descended from Greek settlers they would have spoken Greek. If they descended from Arab invaders they would be Muslim. (The Coptic Christians can't be distinguished physically from their Muslim compatriots, which indicates that the Muslims also have much Coptic, which is to say Ancient Egyptian blood. Unlike the Muslims, though, the Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that goes with the imposition of an Islamic state).
Point 2. Skull of Tutankhamun identified as a North African by anthropologists (eg. S. Anton) working blind, and with no idea as to the age of said skull. Obviously they went by present day North Africans, which includes modern Egypians.
Point 3. It's blindingly obvious!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Point 1. No historical evidence for a mass migration out of Egypt. Abundant evidence for ethnic continuity, especially into Coptic Christian community, who preserve among other things the language of the ancients, albeit with a Greek-based alphabet. If they descended from Greek settlers they would have spoken Greek. If they descended from Arab invaders they would be Muslim. (The Coptic Christians can't be distinguished physically from their Muslim compatriots, which indicates that the Muslims also have much Coptic, ahich is to say Ancient Egyptian blood, but unlike the Muslims, the Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years).
Beginning with point one:
"In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, there is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations, and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt, whether Copt or Muslim. Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present, reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. "Populations, Human")
Which is further supported:
"The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology."--Hassan et al., (2008)
The point of the above intending to demonstrate that the Copts did indeed change. Not to mention the Copts have significant non-African admixture
"J-12f2 and J-M172 represents 94% and 6%, respectively, of haplogroup J with high frequencies among Nubians, Copts, and Arabs. Haplogroup K-M9 is restricted to Hausa and Gaalien with low frequencies and is absent in Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo. Haplogroup R-M173 appears to be the most frequent haplogroup in Fulani, and haplogroupR-P25 has the highest frequency in Hausa and Copts and is present at lower frequencies in north, east, and western Sudan. Haplogroups A-M51, A-M23, D-M174, H-M52, L-M11, OM175, and P-M74 were completely absent from the populations analyzed."--Hassan et al., (2008)
Sure, you may be thinking that the Copts are in Sudan, so they may not be reflective of Egyptian Copts in Egypt, but Hassan et al., states:
"The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries"
Looking at their data (figure 3) the Copts are closest to the Nubians, the only Nilo-Saharan group to have significant non-African genes, (Which the Nubians apparently gained from Afro-Asiatic groups)
To expand on the above...
Copts- Significant frequencies of J1, J2, and R1b (data from Hassan et al., (2008)
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep101: Point 2. Skull of Tutankhamun identified as a North African by anthropologists (eg. S. Anton) working blind, and with no idea as to the age of said skull. Obviously they went by present day North Africans, which includes modern Egypians.
What does north African mean to you, Caucasoid? Sudanese are northeast Africans. It should be noted, that northeast Africa is separated from northwest Africa by a genetic discontinuity:
quote:The distribution of subsets of haplogroups U6 and M1 also suggests the presence of a discontinuity between Libya and Egypt, separating western North Africa from eastern North Africa. Even if both haplogroups are thought to have been carried by a back-to-Africa migration from the Near East, significant increased U6 frequencies have been detected in the West compared to the East. The network of all U6 sequences found in the database presents two nodes with star-like shape, U6a* and U6a1. In a similar way, M1a1 is the node with starlike topology in haplogroup M1, and the node where most of the eastern sequences are found. Time estimates of these nodes are 13.5 6 3.7, 13.0 6 5.7, and 13.1 6 7.0 kya for haplogroups U6a*, U6a1, and M1a1 respectively. The most plausible explanation of the frequency distribution of M1a, U6, and M1b1 lineages, their coalescence age estimates, and the star-like shape would be an early split in the back to Africa migration followed by a period of stability and a period of expansion. The split would have produced two different migration waves, one westward, represented by U6 and possibly M1b1 in lower frequencies, and the other southward, represented by M1a. Each haplogroup would have increased its frequency by drift and subsequently accumulated diversity over time. Coalescent time estimates point to a possible second expansion of these haplogroups at the end of the LGM, simultaneously with some Eurasian haplogroups, as suggested by Olivieri et al. (2006). Moreover, all but one M1a1 sequence are found in eastern North Africa, which suggests that this subclade might have appeared in the East, and only after that have migrated westwards at this period.
-- Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., (2011)
^Basically, classifying the skull as "north African" hardly means anything. As Northeast Africans are genetically separated from northwest Africans.
See the Moderator's email correspondence with Susan Anton for clarification on Tut's classification:
There are numerous other comparisons that can be made where modern Egyptians are closer to Asiatics in appearance than Ancient Egyptians
"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times"--Keita (2005)
"Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006)."--Irish (2009)
"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 and JT Stock (2007)
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: A few things to be going on with.
Point 1. No historical evidence for a mass migration out of Egypt. Abundant evidence for ethnic continuity, especially into Coptic Christian community, who preserve among other things the language of the ancients, albeit with a Greek-based alphabet.[/URL]
The Topic of the Copts has already been discussed to death here.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: If they descended from Greek settlers they would have spoken Greek. If they descended from Arab invaders they would be Muslim. [/URL]
How absurd! The Copts language is written in Greek, the Copts took on Greek Names, The Copts relationship with the Greeks is obvious from the depiction of Fayium Egypto-Grecian Mullattos(Who look oddly like Modern Greeks as well as Alexandian and Ciarian Egyptians You Eurocentrics love to post.)
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: (The Coptic Christians can't be distinguished physically from their Muslim compatriots, which indicates that the Muslims also have much Coptic, which is to say Ancient Egyptian blood. Unlike the Muslims, though, the Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that goes with the imposition of an Islamic state).
I wonder why you Racists always Run to Ciaro and Alexandria to Prove your point, Running From Natives of Luxor and Aswan and Upper Egypt.(Natives not Settlers from Turkey and arabia and the North)...
More on this later.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Point 2. Skull of Tutankhamun identified as a North African by anthropologists (eg. S. Anton) working blind,
Dr. Anton's Response to this matter...
From: "Susan C Anton" <susan.anton@nyu.edu> [Add to Address Book] Add to Address Book To: email withheld
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:26:22 -0400 Subject: Re: North African ''caucasoid'' and European nose opening Tut-ankh-amu
Dear name withheld,, Thanks for your email. I actually didn't choose the term "North African Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that worked on separate reconstructions). The French team was responsible for the reconstruction that was on the cover of National Geographic Magazine and they also used that term.
Our team, myself and Michael Anderson of Yale, were the ones that did the plaster reconstruction without knowledge of whose skull we were working on. I did the biological profile (assessment of age at death, sex and ancestry), Michael made the actual reconstruction. Based on the physical characters of the skull, [b]I concluded that this was the skull of a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year range and of African ancestry, possibly north african. The possibly north african came mostly from the shape of the face including the narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African' designation. A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the nose was a bit unusual. Because their is latitudinal variation in several aspects of the skull (including nose size/shape), the narrowness of the nose suggested that he might be from a northerly group. This is also, I presume, what the French focussed on. I have not been in direct contact with the French group, but my understanding is that by their definition of 'caucasoid' they include Peoples from North Africa, Peoples from Western Asia (and the Caucasus, from where the term derives), and Eureopean peoples. So I don't think that they were referring to a specific set of those peoples. I personally don't find that term all that useful and so I don't use it. That it was attributed to me by the media is an incorrect attribution on their part. I also never said he had a European nose, although I am sure I did say that the narrow nose was what led me to suggest North Africa as a possibility and that a narrow nose is more typically seen in Europe. Not a great sound-bit that, so I guess it gets shortened to European nose.
As you also note, skin color today in North Africa can range from much lighter than what they chose to much darker. And we don't know how well today's range matches that of the past, although I suspect there was also a range of variation in the past, as is normal for any biological population. Michael's reconstruction did not include an inference of skin color (or eye color), the French team's did and their inference was, I understand, based on a 'average' skin tone for Egypt today. I don't know the specifics of how they did that. I think, however, it would have been as accurate to have had the same facial reconstruction with either a lighter tone or a darker tone to the skin. That said, skin and eye color will always be an inference.
I hope that helps explain. Susan
Susan C. Antón Joint Editor, Journal of Human Evolution Director, MA Program in Human Skeletal Biology Associate Professor, Center for the Study of Human Origins Department of Anthropology NYU 25 Waverly Place, New York, NY 10003 (212)992-9786
Yes. It's blindingly obvious you selectively chose ancient dynastic portraits with their original dark paint faded off (like Nefertiti and the seated scribe) and put them in with mummy portraits from the Greco-Roman period, along with modern day fair-skinned Afrangi elite.
This is quite different from the TRUE PICTURE.
Courtesy of Wally...
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Editions:
Y-Chromosome Analysis in Egypt Suggests a Genetic Regional Continuity in Northeastern Africa Franz Manni et al., (2002)
"Abstract: The geographic location of Egypt, at the interface between North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe, prompted us to investigate the genetic diversity of this population and its relationship with neighboring populations. To assess the extent to which the modern Egyptian population reflects this intermediate geographic position, ten Unique Event Polymorphisms (UEPs), mapping to the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, have been typed in 164 Y chromosomes from three North African populations. The analysis of these binary markers, which define 11 Y-chromosome lineages, were used to determine the haplogroup frequencies in Egyptians, Moroccan Arabs, and Moroccan Berbers and thereby define the Y-chromosome background in these regions. Pairwise comparisons with a set of 15 different populations from neighboring European, North African, and Middle Eastern populations and geographic analysis showed the absence of any significant genetic barrier in the eastern part of the Mediterranean area, suggesting that genetic variation and gene flow in this area follow the "isolation-by-distance" model. These results are in sharp contrast with the observation of a strong north-south genetic barrier in the western Mediterranean basin, defined by the Gibraltar Strait. Thus, the Y-chromosome gene pool in the modern Egyptian population reflects a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African characteristics, highlighting the importance of ancient and recent migration waves, followed by gene flow, in the region."
Classical genetic studies show a high degree of genetic heterogeneity in the modern Egyptian population, suggesting that this population is descended from a mixture of African, Asian, and Arabian stock (Mahmoud et al. 1987; Hafez et al. 1986). Genetic heterogeneity within the Egyptian gene pool is also supported by more recent studies using autosomal STR markers (Klintschar et al. 1998; 2001)."--Franz Manni et al., (2002)
Mind you, the Egyptians being sampled in that study are from Lower Egypt (Cairo), crushing your earlier statements LOL
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Easy tigers. There is no evidence, as I said, of Egyptians migrating en masse into black Africa, apart from the military desertion mentioned by Herodotus which still left Egypt full of Egyptians! (This was many years before the Persian invasion, and even after that Egyptians stayed in Egypt.) Not a single Egyptian, or even Meroitic object has been found south or west of Nubia.
It's established that Egyptians never left Egypt. For the population to change in any major way, that only leaves the option of them being bred out by newcomers.
Proving a negroid element to ancient north Africa is irrelevant. I was not asked about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians but about whether they have changed phenotypically since the time of the pharaohs. I say no, and that Egypt was and remains a diverse society. A negroid element is not entirely absent from modern Egypt, and if anything it might be expected to have incresed somewhat over the centurues, due to three well attested historical factors:
1. Medjay mercenaries settling in later dynastic Egypt and providing law enforcement services for the Ramesside kings.
2. The Nubian occupation of the 25th dynasty.
3. The Islamic slave trade. Thousands of negro slaves sold in Zanzibar each year until the 19th century, ending up in Cairo and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.
Afrocenrists seem to assume that more Eurasian than black African settlement took place in Egypt. There is no evidence for this at all. I suspect the Egyptian population was great enough to absorb all comers without changing dramatically, but there seems to have been migration from all directions, the waves effectively cancelling each other out.
Arab genetic influence is irrelevant in consideration of the Christian Copts, for reasons given. Armenian Christians were only settled in Alexandria and Cairo, whereas Copts are found in all parts of Egypt. In the cities mentioned, the Armenians had their own churches and communities and I doubt there was much mixing with Coptic Egyptians. (Incidentally the Colchians didn't go anywhere either, and probably resembled modern Georgians and Armenians rather than black Africans.
Greeks colonists in Egypt did not mix much with the Copts due to language and cultural barriers. (Few Latins ever settled in Egypt, meanwhile). After the Council of Chalcedon the Greeks (i.e. the Byzantine/ Eastern Roman Empire) considered the Egyptians to be Monophysite heretics, and were by all accounts so unpleasant to them that many Egyptians actually viewed the Muslim invasion as a liberation!
Copts means Egyptians, Copts retain the term 'Res en Keme' for themselves, People of Egypt. Not to be confused with Coptic Christianity in Sudan and Ethiopia, which was simply a branch of Christianity in communion with and under the authority of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. Christian Ethiopias are called Coptic Christians (though their church is now autonomous) but they are not Copts.
Anthropological studies send out mixed messages regarding ethnic continuity in ancient Egypt. Brace and Irish seemed to indicate that there was little or no change from predynastic to Roman times, and I hope I have established that the Egyptian Copts have been effectively preserved as an isolated sect since Roman times. Christian Nubians, that said, are among the few outside populations with whom the Egyptian Copts could have mixed, so some Copts could well be a bit darker now than their ancient Egyptian ancestors were. By the way all the modern Egyptians I showed before are Coptic Christians, who can have no recent connections with 'Asiatics'.
North Africa obviously means north of the Sahara, and might include some Nubians. Egyptian relatedness to Berbers is fairly irrelevant to the question of Egyptian ethnic continuity.
I've rambled on, but in short, L',you've not managed to contradict a single one of my points, and neither has Jari. Are those darker Copts meant to be Armenians, or are you agreeing with me that the Egyptian population has not changed after all? In which case, thanks!
Greek settlers in Egypt seldom learned Egyptian, so would hardly have adapted their alphabet to the native lingo. What happened was the Egyptians realized that Greek alphabet was infinitely more efficient (and moreover that the old hieroglyphics were innately linked to the paganism that they were abandoning in favour of Christianity). It also represented a political and cultural realignment. It was no bigger a deal than the Turks switching from Arabic to Latin script to write Turkish, a change which took place in the 1920s, or thereabouts. They didn't suddenly ceased to be Turks! Similarly Ancient Egyptians stayed Egyptian despite ditching the clunky old writing system.
Northern Egypt was as much part of Ancient Egypt as the south was. The Delta was one of the most densely populated regions of the country. Only the damper climate accounts for less surviving archaeology- that and it continued to be densely populated so more stonework was recycled. The lighter-skinned northerners were no less Egyptian than the darker southerners. The situation remains so. Was someone supposed to be challenging the view of ethnic continuity?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Nobody is saying Egyptians left Egypt, only that foreigners entered Egypt and mixed with the natives! This is established in all historical records from the Hyksos, to the Assyrians, to the Persians, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Turks along with Albanians, Circassians, and others etc. in their empire.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
@Djehuti Why do Afrocentrsist kid themselves that their edited little selections are the 'true picture'? it is only half the picture, and still looks more like modern Egypt than anything else. Why isn't this 'the true picture'? It's as true...
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Picture spam time! Blame Wally and Mary.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @Djehuti Why do Afrocentrsist kid themselves that their edited little selections are the 'true picture'? it is only half the picture, and still looks more like modern Egypt than anything else. Why isn't this 'the true picture'? It's as true...
Because as I have stated before, ALL of the portraits in your collage picture above were posted in this forum many times in full view form. Also, some of those portraits have lost their paint and we have posted older photos showing the original dark paint that was their black skin. Others have also compared some of those portraits to black peoples in Sub-Sahara who share the same features.
So you're wasting your time.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: (This was many years before the Persian invasion, and even after that Egyptians stayed in Egypt.) Not a single Egyptian, or even Meroitic object has been found south or west of Nubia.
Proving a negroid element to ancient north Africa is irrelevant. I was not asked about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians but about whether they have changed phenotypically since the time of the pharaohs. I say no, and that Egypt was and remains a diverse society. A negroid element is not entirely absent from modern Egypt, and if anything it might be expected to have incresed somewhat over the centurues, due to three well attested historical factors:
1. Medjay mercenaries settling in later dynastic Egypt and providing law enforcement services for the Ramesside kings.
2. The Nubian occupation of the 25th dynasty.
3. The Islamic slave trade. Thousands of negro slaves sold in Zanzibar each year until the 19th century, ending up in Cairo and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.
What a Racist.
You claim the Egyptians are the same but make an excuse that the Darker Egyptians are that way because of bogus factors.
1) the Medjay were a police force No Doubt and were depicted Darker than the Ave. Egyptians but by a Few shades.
Egyptian Spearmen
2) Why is it that Eurocentric racists always talk about the 25th Dynasty??
What about the 3rd Dynasty
3rd
Is Dojser Negro enough for you??
Huni
Is Huni Negro Enough for you??
What about the Elehantine I.E Ta-Seti origin of the 5th, 6th, and 12th Dynasty??
What about the 12th Dynasty Family that founded the Amun priesthood at Waset(Thebes)
Are they Negro enough for you??
Neshy and Kemmou interatction goes back to the Predynastic.
3) Racist distortion seeing as the Saqalibba Slavery in Egypt which eventually led to the Rise of the Mamluk Rulers.
Like a Typical Racist you seem to ignore the Saqalibba Slavery in Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Afrocenrists seem to assume that more Eurasian than black African settlement took place in Egypt. There is no evidence for this at all.
What History books are you reading. Might want to start with the Persians and end with the Ottoman Turks.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I suspect the Egyptian population was great enough to absorb all comers without changing dramatically, but there seems to have been migration from all directions, the waves effectively cancelling each other out.
Arab genetic influence is irrelevant in consideration of the Christian Copts, for reasons given. Armenian Christians were only settled in Alexandria and Cairo, whereas Copts are found in all parts of Egypt. In the cities mentioned, the Armenians had their own churches and communities and I doubt there was much mixing with Coptic Egyptians. (Incidentally the Colchians didn't go anywhere either, and probably resembled modern Georgians and Armenians rather than black Africans.
We already talked about the Copts and already proved there are Darker Copts and Lighter Copts and that the Copts had relations with Armenians and Greeks.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Greeks colonists in Egypt did not mix much with the Copts due to language and cultural barriers. (Few Latins ever settled in Egypt, meanwhile). After the Council of Chalcedon the Greeks (i.e. the Byzantine/ Eastern Roman Empire) considered the Egyptians to be Monophysite heretics, and were by all accounts so unpleasant to them that many Egyptians actually viewed the Muslim invasion as a liberation!
Dude the Copts Wrote in Greek, Took Greek Names etc. The Greeks Still continued to Rule over Egyptians until the arab Invasions. Also the Fayium Portraints represent a clear Egypto-Grecian mulatto population.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Copts means Egyptians, Copts retain the term 'Res en Keme' for themselves, People of Egypt. Not to be confused with Coptic Christianity in Sudan and Ethiopia, which was simply a branch of Christianity in communion with and under the authority of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. Christian Ethiopias are called Coptic Christians (though their church is now autonomous) but they are not Copts.
Anthropological studies send out mixed messages regarding ethnic continuity in ancient Egypt. Brace and Irish seemed to indicate that there was little or no change from predynastic to Roman times, and I hope I have established that the Egyptian Copts have been effectively preserved as an isolated sect since Roman times. Christian Nubians, that said, are among the few outside populations with whom the Egyptian Copts could have mixed, so some Copts could well be a bit darker now than their ancient Egyptian ancestors were. By the way all the modern Egyptians I showed before are Coptic Christians, who can have no recent connections with 'Asiatics'.
North Africa obviously means north of the Sahara, and might include some Nubians. Egyptian relatedness to Berbers is fairly irrelevant to the question of Egyptian ethnic continuity.
I've rambled on, but in short, L',you've not managed to contradict a single one of my points, and neither has Jari. Are those darker Copts meant to be Armenians, or are you agreeing with me that the Egyptian population has not changed after all? In which case, thanks!
Greek settlers in Egypt seldom learned Egyptian, so would hardly have adapted their alphabet to the native lingo. What happened was the Egyptians realized that Greek alphabet was infinitely more efficient (and moreover that the old hieroglyphics were innately linked to the paganism that they were abandoning in favour of Christianity). It also represented a political and cultural realignment. It was no bigger a deal than the Turks switching from Arabic to Latin script to write Turkish, a change which took place in the 1920s, or thereabouts. They didn't suddenly ceased to be Turks! Similarly Ancient Egyptians stayed Egyptian despite ditching the clunky old writing system.
Northern Egypt was as much part of Ancient Egypt as the south was. The Delta was one of the most densely populated regions of the country. Only the damper climate accounts for less surviving archaeology- that and it continued to be densely populated so more stonework was recycled. The lighter-skinend northerners were no less Egyptian than the darker southerners. The situation remains so. Was someone supposed to be challenging the view of ethnic continuity?
All this talk about Copts and Egyptians yet a little racist such as your self never puts up a Luxor, Aswani, or other Dark Skinned Upper Egyptians up as proof of the decendants of egypt without inserting some Bogus notion that they are decendants of slaves or Nubians..
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I've discovered that the term 'racist' has been redefined in certain circles to mean one who tells the truth about Egyptian history, so the accusation tends to wash over me these days. It is of no consequence to me what colour Egyptians are or were (mostly the same colour as it happens). What bothers me is people going about declaring that modern Egyptians are invaders and impostors, while simaltaneously laying claim to their ancestors, purely on the basis of having ancestors who came from the same continent. Any African from outside of Egypt itself has no greater claim on Egypt's past than the people of Finland do on the Great Wall of China, and they certainly have no business impugning the Egyptianness of Egyptians or calling others 'racist'.
As far as I'm aware there was no population transplant between the third and fourth dynasties, or between the twelfth and the nineteenth, so what are you trying to prove now?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Easy tigers. There is no evidence, as I said, of Egyptians migrating en masse into black Africa, apart from the military desertion mentioned by Herodotus which still left Egypt full of Egyptians! (This was many years before the Persian invasion, and even after that Egyptians stayed in Egypt.) Not a single Egyptian, or even Meroitic object has been found south or west of Nubia.
It's established that Egyptians never left Egypt.
Who in this thread has said that the ancient Egyptians ever left their home nation? You are either confusing us with someone else or creating a pathetic strawman argument.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
LOL. Largely avoiding the research presented
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Easy tigers. There is no evidence, as I said, of Egyptians migrating en masse into black Africa, apart from the military desertion mentioned by Herodotus which still left Egypt full of Egyptians! (This was many years before the Persian invasion, and even after that Egyptians stayed in Egypt.) Not a single Egyptian, or even Meroitic object has been found south or west of Nubia.
WTH does that have to do with anything? When did we claim there was a mass migrations of Egyptians to the south? We never did. Another strawman argument on your part. It is widely accepted however, that sub-Saharan Africans populated the Nile Valley
"Our findings are in accordance with other studies on Y-chromosome markers that have shown that the predominant Y-chromosome lineage in Berber communities is the subhaplogroup E1b1b1b (E-M81), which emerged in Africa, is specific to North African populations, and is almost absent in Europe, except in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) and Sicily. Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum, with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001)"
Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations Frigi et al., (2010)
Underhill et al., 2001:
"The expansion of Neolithic farmers from the Middle East into Europe is also represented in the NRY data, although suggesting a relatively localized area of impact. As mentioned before in relation to African NRY history, a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with the M35}M215 mutation expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant (Fig. 3g)."
quote:It's established that Egyptians never left Egypt. For the population to change in any major way, that only leaves the option of them being bred out by newcomers.
LOL. Are you retarded?
1)Nobody ever claimed Egyptians migrated out of Egypt
2)You completely ignored the genetic data I provided that clearly states the modern Egyptians have changed and the Copts also have significant frequencies non-African lineages. It doesn't take a lot of gene flow to drastically alter the genes of a populations, as Keita notes in 1996 and 2010:
"Ancestry must not be confused with explanation, or gene history with population or culture history. Known ancestors and the “ancestors of one’s genes” are not the same things necessarily (Weiss and Long 2009)"-Keita (2010)
A small amount of gene flow per generation into a population or geographic region can drastically change its original gene frequencies in only a few thousand years, as noted by Cavalli-Sforza (1991)."-Keita (2010)
You are still avoiding the other data I presented in response to your initial post.
quote:Proving a negroid element to ancient north Africa is irrelevant. I was not asked about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians but about whether they have changed phenotypically since the time of the pharaohs. I say no, and that Egypt was and remains a diverse society. A negroid element is not entirely absent from modern Egypt, and if anything it might be expected to have incresed somewhat over the centurues, due to three well attested historical factors:
DO you see how you completely failed to grasp the point of the quote I provided? Here, let me reiterate and go into more detail:
"In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, there is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations, and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt, whether Copt or Muslim. Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present, reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. "Populations, Human")
The point of the above quote was not to prove anything "Negroid", such a thing is laughable. As I clearly explained when I first posted this quote, it shows that the Egyptian phenotype DID change. I also cite AP Starling and JT Stock (2007) where they specifically state a demographic change withing the Nile Valley. You are scientifically illiterate, and fail to comprehend basic facts when presented to you.
quote:1. Medjay mercenaries settling in later dynastic Egypt and providing law enforcement services for the Ramesside kings.
2. The Nubian occupation of the 25th dynasty.
3. The Islamic slave trade. Thousands of negro slaves sold in Zanzibar each year until the 19th century, ending up in Cairo and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.
LOL. You fail to base your statements that dark skin increased in Egypt on anything scientific. What we really have is as follows:
quote: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).
--Keita, S.O.Y. (1996)
^Gene flow was far greater from the Middle East than from south of Egypt. So where does that leave you? A growing resemblance towards Middle Eastern/European populations.
quote:Afrocenrists seem to assume that more Eurasian than black African settlement took place in Egypt. There is no evidence for this at all. I suspect the Egyptian population was great enough to absorb all comers without changing dramatically, but there seems to have been migration from all directions, the waves effectively cancelling each other out.
See my above citation. There was more migration from the Middle East than south of Egypt- a known fact. It isn't as if migration from areas south of Egypt would matter, seeing as how Egyptians came from the south to begin with! The majority of African lineages in Egypt are pre-pharaonic lineages, with a possible exception of haplotype IV, although it isn't likely that this haplotype was introduced from the Bantu expansion, it might have been much earlier.
quote:Arab genetic influence is irrelevant in consideration of the Christian Copts, for reasons given. Armenian Christians were only settled in Alexandria and Cairo, whereas Copts are found in all parts of Egypt. In the cities mentioned, the Armenians had their own churches and communities and I doubt there was much mixing with Coptic Egyptians. (Incidentally the Colchians didn't go anywhere either, and probably resembled modern Georgians and Armenians rather than black Africans.
Dude, you are retarded. I provided you with a plethora of info on the Copts. I also provided you with info on the modern population genetics, in where Egyptian from Cairo were sampled and were revealed to have a mixture of African and non-African genes. You just love to ignore things huh?
quote:Greeks colonists in Egypt did not mix much with the Copts due to language and cultural barriers. (Few Latins ever settled in Egypt, meanwhile). After the Council of Chalcedon the Greeks (i.e. the Byzantine/ Eastern Roman Empire) considered the Egyptians to be Monophysite heretics, and were by all accounts so unpleasant to them that many Egyptians actually viewed the Muslim invasion as a liberation!
Relevance? You are clinging to your own opinions in spite of what the actual genetic data tells us!
Copts- J1, J2, R1b, all in high/significant frequencies in the Copts
quote:Copts means Egyptians, Copts retain the term 'Res en Keme' for themselves, People of Egypt. Not to be confused with Coptic Christianity in Sudan and Ethiopia, which was simply a branch of Christianity in communion with and under the authority of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. Christian Ethiopias are called Coptic Christians (though their church is now autonomous) but they are not Copts.
Ignoring the genetic data, AGAIN. I could care less about the above
quote:Anthropological studies send out mixed messages regarding ethnic continuity in ancient Egypt. Brace and Irish seemed to indicate that there was little or no change from predynastic to Roman times, and I hope I have established that the Egyptian Copts have been effectively preserved as an isolated sect since Roman times. Christian Nubians, that said, are among the few outside populations with whom the Egyptian Copts could have mixed, so some Copts could well be a bit darker now than their ancient Egyptian ancestors were. By the way all the modern Egyptians I showed before are Coptic Christians, who can have no recent connections with 'Asiatics'.
Go look at the dendrogram from Brace (2005) it doesn't look like the modern Egyptians go anywhere near the ancient Egyptians. The ancient Egyptians are closest to modern Somalis and Nubians.
Irish (2006) stated that the only outliers in his study were Greek and Roman Egyptians whom he notes had traits reminiscent of Europeans and West Asians. In his 2009 study, which I referenced earlier, he clearly states that there was increased migrations during the Roman and Greek eras., what does that tell you?
quote:North Africa obviously means north of the Sahara, and might include some Nubians. Egyptian relatedness to Berbers is fairly irrelevant to the question of Egyptian ethnic continuity.
Some Nubians? Sudan is in northeast Africa and there is genetic continuity with Sudanese and southern (darker) Egyptians while there is NONE with northwest Africans.
quote:I've rambled on, but in short, L',you've not managed to contradict a single one of my points, and neither has Jari. Are those darker Copts meant to be Armenians, or are you agreeing with me that the Egyptian population has not changed after all? In which case, thanks!
Wow, that is a funny claim. I responded to all of your posts with recent research all of which attests to substantial input into the Egyptian gene pool from the Middle East.
Why did you ignore my citation of AP Starling and JT Stock? Because, they clearly refute your moronic claims by stating that Nubians are more similar to ancient Egyptians than later Egyptians who mixed significantly with Mediterranean populations. You are arguing against scientific data with your unsupported opinions.
Rahotep101: Offers his own opinions
Everybody else: has offered scientific research which contradict Rahotep101's opinions
Rahotep101: Doesn't understand and continues on with his unsupported opinions.
It is really sad how you were unable to address a single thing. You said it yourself:
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep101: I've rambled on...
You have rambled on indeed. Ramblings that have not addressed anything I have provided herein.
quote:Greek settlers in Egypt seldom learned Egyptian, so would hardly have adapted their alphabet to the native lingo. What happened was the Egyptians realized that Greek alphabet was infinitely more efficient (and moreover that the old hieroglyphics were innately linked to the paganism that they were abandoning in favour of Christianity). It also represented a political and cultural realignment. It was no bigger a deal than the Turks switching from Arabic to Latin script to write Turkish, a change which took place in the 1920s, or thereabouts. They didn't suddenly ceased to be Turks! Similarly Ancient Egyptians stayed Egyptian despite ditching the clunky old writing system.
You have not listed one scientific study that states the ancient Egyptian population stayed the same for 5,000 years. I have listed several studies that state the same thing- i.e., that the ancient population was significantly influenced by Mediterranean populations. What you said above is basically is basically irrelevant.
quote:Northern Egypt was as much part of Ancient Egypt as the south was. The Delta was one of the most densely populated regions of the country. Only the damper climate accounts for less surviving archaeology- that and it continued to be densely populated so more stonework was recycled. The lighter-skinned northerners were no less Egyptian than the darker southerners. The situation remains so. Was someone supposed to be challenging the view of ethnic continuity?
Did I ever deny any of the above? Nope, I didn't. Strawman fallacy from you, this is your fourth strawman fallacy argument since joining.
There was no biological uniformity throughout a 5,000 year period, are you insane? Nor was there "ethnic" continuity, because the majority of Egyptians are ethnically Arabic. I never claimed the ancient Egyptian population was replaced, so don't go posting more of your fallacy arguments
quote:I've discovered that the term 'racist' has been redefined in certain circles to mean one who tells the truth about Egyptian history, so the accusation tends to wash over me these days. It is of no consequence to me what colour Egyptians are or were (mostly the same colour as it happens). What bothers me is people going about declaring that modern Egyptians are invaders and impostors, while simaltaneously laying claim to their ancestors, purely on the basis of having ancestors who came from the same continent. Any African from outside of Egypt itself has no greater claim on Egypt's past than the people of Finland do on the Great Wall of China, and they certainly have no business impugning the Egyptianness of Egyptians or calling others 'racist'.
Behold, more strawman arguments from Rahotep101. Please learn to understand our arguments before placing us within your afro-centric stereotypes. Nobody said the modern population was replaced. It is however supported by genetic evidence provided earlier in this thread that the modern population is essentially a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and sub-Saharan genes.
quote:As far as I'm aware there was no population transplant between the third and fourth dynasties, or between the twelfth and the nineteenth, so what are you trying to prove now?
Nobody claimed there was. Change your name to "The Strawman", because that is all you do
It should be noted, that in modern Egypt there is a north-south cline (Smith, 2002) but in ancient Egypt there was a south-north cline (Kemp, 2006)
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
DJ, would you mind adjusting your images?
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^You need to provide a link to the full studies and not just your cherrypicked statements from these studies.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^I have free access to online journals. You would have to pay, do you want to pay?
Edit: If you would really like, you may check the Uploaded Studies thread I started. You can download the PDF files I uploaded there
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': ^I have free access to online journals. You would have to pay, do you want to pay?
I shouldn't have to pay. You're the one spamming these threads with your handpicked comments from these studies, but won't provide the whole source for the person you're trying to debate.
Looks to me like you're trying to gain a certain advantage by doing so.lol
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:I shouldn't have to pay. You're the one spamming these threads with your handpicked comments from these studies, but won't provide the whole source for the person you're trying to debate.
Looks to me like you're trying to gain a certain advantage by doing so.lol
Spamming? Not at all. I am simply responding to Rahotep101's posts, there is nothing being spammed. This would be spamming
I'm not selfish, I do give others access to these studies:
Other than that, try using Google Scholar
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I've discovered that the term 'racist' has been redefined in certain circles to mean one who tells the truth about Egyptian history, so the accusation tends to wash over me these days.
I don't give a damn what you feel about the label. Anyone who with a Straight face declare that the Cairan and Alexandrian Egyptians he put up are Unmixed with out any foreign admixture, but in the very same breath declare that Slaves from the Muslim era "Darkened" the Egyptians is a racist distorter of history.
Maybe you might be able to pull something like that with an aforcentric, but not me. Because first off any black Slavery in Egypt or North Africa for that matter PALES in comparison to the Saqalibba Slavic and Turk Slavery and other periods of White Slavery in North Africa that people like you tend to ignore.
Second off the So called black Slaves in Egypt tended to be settled in the Delta and Cairo not Upper Egypt. Upper Egypt was settled but tended to resist assimilation and admixture. Same with the So Called Nubians. So the Idea that the Luxor, Aswani and other Native Upper Egyptians are Dark due to Salvery is Absurd. Esp. Considering the Amount of Saqalibba AKA white Slaves in Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: It is of no consequence to me what colour Egyptians are or were (mostly the same colour as it happens). What bothers me is people going about declaring that modern Egyptians are invaders and impostors, while simaltaneously laying claim to their ancestors, purely on the basis of having ancestors who came from the same continent.
Yeah but I have yet to see you say a damn thing to "Phonecian7" who links himself to egypt Via some imagined "Caucasian" heritage. I have yet to see you talk about or make videos on the Nordics who claim Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Any African from outside of Egypt itself has no greater claim on Egypt's past than the people of Finland do on the Great Wall of China, and they certainly have no business impugning the Egyptianness of Egyptians or calling others 'racist'.
This is a stupid notion, As Egypt itself rose out of a culture that is similar to other African Cultures, the art left behind resembles other Africans etc. This is no different than a Bunch of Tin Isles, Celtic and Teutonic European laying claim and showing their respect to Greece and Rome.
Yet, I have yet to see you say anything about Tin Isle Celts, Anglos, and Teutons laying claim to Greece.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: As far as I'm aware there was no population transplant between the third and fourth dynasties, or between the twelfth and the nineteenth, so what are you trying to prove now?
What are you talking about?? Where did I say or ever say there was a population transplant, what I said was that there was always a connection between Egypt and the Civilizations and Lands and people to the south.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
rahotep101's opinion is irrelevant. Until he himself recognizes the double standard of the west selling 'nubia' as the land of Blacks despite that 'nubians' and ancient Egyptians were biologically coextensive (Godde, 2009), then the basis for his dichotomy of 'black' and 'Egyptian' is irrelevant. Those of his ilk can NEVER address this blatant disconnect. Susan Anton's reasoning was not based on any comparative North African material but generalized phenotype also seen in the Horn nor did she use the word "Caucasoid". Ancient Egyptians were also tropically adapted while North Africa is not in the tropics and Brace (2005) dendrograms show ancient Egyptians clustering with modern Nubians before they do so with Modern Egyptians so something obviously changed despite his simplistic denials. Those such as Rahotep refuse to see evidence that contradicts their dogma.
No one claims direct Egyptian descent or that Egyptians migrated south or that many modern Egyptians don't descend directly from their ancient ancestors. Only that it is totally ridiculous to assume, even without viewing data that clearly contradicts the notion, that Egyptians for the past 5,000 years stayed absolutely stagnant. This is utterly ridiculous.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
The matter of alleged Egyptian similarities to Nubains is irrelevant to the matter of ethnic/ phenotypical continuity in Egypt. Also, there are Nubians and Nubians. Some are very black and negroid, some look more caucasoid, or shall we say Hamitic? Dynastic Egyptians used the former type as the stereotype, and clearly differentiated the Nubians physically from themselves. The unpleasant experience of these negroid nubians at Egyptian colonial hands does not appear to have been vastly different from the experience of other black Africans at later Arab and European hands, which poses the question why black people should wish to be associated with Ancient Egyptians!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Alleged tropical adaptation is also irrelevant, as predynastic Egypt had a tropical climate, supporting lions and hippos and probably ostriches.
Also these undeniably negroid Nubians are found in the land that lies between the Egyptians and the other narrow-featuered populations of Africa, i.e. Ethiopia and Somalia, which rather shows the geographical and ethnic disconnect between Egyptians and Horn Africans.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QB] The matter of alleged Egyptian similarities to Nubains is irrelevant to the matter of ethnic/ phenotypical continuity in Egypt. Also, there are Nubians and Nubians. Some are very black and negroid, some look more caucasoid, or shall we say Hamitic? Dynastic Egyptians used the former type as the stereotype, and clearly differentiated the Nubians physically from themselves. The unpleasant experience of these negroid nubians at Egyptian colonial hands does not appear to have been vastly different from the experience of other black Africans at later Arab and European hands, which poses the question why black people should wish to be associated with Ancient Egyptians!
Dude, this is the most idiotic argument of all time. No smart human being has ever won a debate by posting up 3,000 year old cartoon caricatures with ancient political undertones. Egyptians are shown smiting Asiatics, Lybians, and anyone defying Egypt and I will not entertain your argument by creating more picture spam in the absence of sound data and historical context.
It's like seeing a picture of a Chinese smiting a Mongol or a Roman smiting a Gaul and calling it "racial". How childishly uneducated.
Terms like "Hamitic" and "Caucasoid" have been debunked and out of use in anthropology since the 70s. You can tell the people who get all of their information from biased/Eurocentric discussion forums by the terms they use. If you read any of Huxley's work you see how language limits interpretation and can enslave the mind, which is why Eurocentrics use such terms. By using "Caucasoid" as a word supposedly representing a world population group spanning all of Europe, SW Asia, SE Asia, North Africa and the Horn of Africa, you limit room for interpretation of features in these respective regions being due to local adaptations. In the case of Africa, Hiernaux already showed that these are not "Hamitic" features but elongated African features and are indigenous as they are seen on some of the blackest (darkest) populations in the world.
"Negroid" is one variant among many and it just so happened that SOME of the populations below Egypt expressed such phenotype. Others did not. People from Punt were depicted just like Egyptians. Scenes of "Nubian" wrestlers, medjay spearmen, and royal gift bearers from the tomb of Huey all are depicted as significantly favoring Egyptians. Other foreigners hardly ever favor Egyptians, it is only other Africans who are so diverse, some favored them, some didn't, of course since Egypt was just a sub-set of a larger African reality. You argument is simple, unbalanced, and ill-informed.
quote:Alleged tropical adaptation is also irrelevant, as predynastic Egypt had a tropical climate, supporting lions and hippos and probably ostriches.
Only the southern tip of Egypt is in the tropics and ancient Egypt's border at Aswan is above the tropic of cancer so ancient Egypt was not tropical. Also, these tropical adaptations have to do with annual mean temperature and Egypt's temperature significantly drops during nightfall. Reports have described Egyptian limb indices as "super tropical", not just tropical and Raxter (2011), despite your assumptions predicted intermediate ratios that were not realized once the measurements were preformed. Bard in her Black Athena rebuttal, even claimed without knowing about this data that Egyptians were adapted to the sub-tropics. Egypt is NOT a place where these adaptations would develop, period.
The problem with Eurocentrics is that when faced with data that contradicts their rigid belief systems, they simply ignore it or raise the bar.
quote:Also these undeniably negroid Nubians are found in the land that lies between the Egyptians and the other narrow-featuered populations of Africa, i.e. Ethiopia and Somalia, which rather shows the geographical and ethnic disconnect between Egyptians and Horn Africans.
No disconnect. "Negroid" as explained is one variant in a vast continuum of features throughout Africa. People have been moving around, interacting, shifting geographic locations and settling in different areas for millenia. The connection comes from language, culture, and biology.
* They spoke a language that emerged in or near the Horn.
* Genetics research show population movements from the horn and into the Nile valley and levant around the time ancestral ancient Egyptian/Afrisan languages were being spread.
* The culture of pre-dynastic Abydos, and thus Egyptian civilization was rooted in earlier central Saharan and more southernly Nilotic traditions.
* Skeletal adaptations place the ancestors of ancient Egyptians in a tropical environment somewhere south of their established borders.
Who lives south of Egypt today? I think a combination of those people, with reference to the indigenous elements of modern Egypt may shed the most accurate picture of what we're after here. Recall again though, it's complicated as Brace (2005) found ancient Egyptians to be more similar to modern Sudanese than to modern Egyptians. Pointing out the pristine representative of ancient Egypt is therefore a tall order (some would call that an understatement).
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Anyone taking bets on how long rahotep101 will last?
His game is really weak, I say a few weeks, maybe a few months.
BTW rahotep101, we really don't know "WHO" these people are. In Egyptian history, White ass-holes like yourself call all people of this particular phenotype Nubians.
But as can be seen in these soldiers (and other artifacts), thought depicted darker, Egyptians and Nubians were phenotypically the same.
Troop of Egyptian Soldiers - From the Asyut tomb of Prince Mesehti - 11th dynasty
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
@Sundjata If you showed an image of a Roman smiting a gaul, (if there were such images) you would be hard-pressed to spot a difference in phenotype. It's funny how historical evidence gets dismissed as picture spam when it doesn't support your fictitious view of the past. By insisting certain phrases are 'debunked' or defunct you just seem to be denying the obvious, and hiding behind the political correct vagueness of the prevailing scientific establishment. You believe in race when it suits you, i.e. when you want to construct the idea of a single 'African' race. Why are 'Elongated African features' (Hamitic) only found in the parts of Africa that face Eurasia? If it was an indigenous adaptation why isn't it found among Nigerians? I think there's mileage in the Hamitic hypothesis yet.
All this is aside from the point of Egyptians looking the same now as they did in Dynastic times, and by their own artwork clearly distinct from negroid nehesu. Images such as that from Horemhab's tomb are stereotypes, of course, even charicatures, but they weren't arrived at arbitrarily.
Nubians in Egyptian art were usually shown as bound captives, sometimes awaiting excution, or as enemies in battle being scattered in a disorderly mass, or as tribute paying subjects (rather than gift-bearing royals as you fondly imagine). Egyptianized Nubians like Kemist and Maiherpri were exceptiona.
Indeed Egyptians used Nubian mercenaries, sometimes against other Nubians. Later, of course, Nubians used Egyptian mercenaries, again against other Nubians!
By the way Egyptians used black Sudanese mercenaries well into medieval times. The European crusaders they came up against recognized the blacks as something different from the Egyptians, for the Egyptians were lumped together with 'Saracens'.
The ultimate source of the Egyptian language and religion is also irrelevant to the question of continuity since dynastic times. If Egyptians are indeed of horn African stock, however, you've got to wonder how it can be that no comparably advanced civilization of at least equal antiquity is found in the south. Where are Somalia's pyramids or hieroglyphics? One thing's for sure, Somalis don't descend from actual Ancient Egyptians. Only modern Egyptians can make such a claim.
Mike111. I'm touched by the warmth of that sentiment. Not to ignore the evidence of the carvings of soldiers, I've already made the point that there appear to have been different types of Nubians, hamitic/Caucasoid ones and negro ones, both darker than the Egyptians. Sorry to keep calling a spade a spade, but I speak as I find.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
[doube post, deleted]
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
LOL Rahotep, You realize you just proved our point. In the Picture Collage you made, One Image of Taraqo is part of the "Hamite" category while another is part of the "Bantu" category. Some of the Nubians paying Tribute are the same skin tone as the Egyptians...
My question to you is why do you insist on segrgating Africans based on Eye-ball anthropology??
Why not apply this to Europeans and to Greece and Rome and the Teutons and Celts??
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @Sundjata If you showed an image of a Roman smiting a gaul, (if there were such images) you would be hard-pressed to spot a difference in phenotype. It's funny how historical evidence gets dismissed as picture spam when it doesn't support your fictitious view of the past. By insisting certain phrases are 'debunked' or defunct you just seem to be denying the obvious, and hiding behind the political correct vagueness of the prevailing scientific establishment.
I love how racists dismiss any science contradicting their worldview as "politically correct". If you have such a beef with the current bio-anthropological paradigm, at least try to refute it. However, since your failure to address most of the data cited against you illustrates scientific illiteracy on your part, I have no confidence that you will bother to do so.
quote:Why are 'Elongated African features' (Hamitic) only found in the parts of Africa that face Eurasia? If it was an indigenous adaptation why isn't it found among Nigerians?
Elongated African features are adaptations to arid environments. Nigeria is humid so we shouldn't expect Nigeria to have elongated features.
quote:Nubians in Egyptian art were usually shown as bound captives, sometimes awaiting excution, or as enemies in battle being scattered in a disorderly mass, or as tribute paying subjects (rather than gift-bearing royals as you fondly imagine). Egyptianized Nubians like Kemist and Maiherpri were exceptiona.
Are you trying to portray Egyptians as having a special opprobrium against black people? Because they didn't care much for Asiatics or Libyans either. Egyptians were undoubtedly xenophobic and chauvinistic, but there's no reason to assume that they were racist in a modern sense.
quote:If Egyptians are indeed of horn African stock, however, you've got to wonder how it can be that no comparably advanced civilization of at least equal antiquity is found in the south. Where are Somalia's pyramids or hieroglyphics?
Just because two groups of people are biologically related does not mean they will have similar technology. The Mayans share a Native American heritage with the Lakota, yet you don't see pyramids all over the northern Great Plains where the Lakota live. To think that biologically related peoples should be technologically equivalent shows a racist equation of biology with technological development.
quote:One thing's for sure, Somalis don't descend from actual Ancient Egyptians. Only modern Egyptians can make such a claim.
I am already really fucking sick of this strawman. No one who has argued against you in this thread has claimed that any sub-Saharan or African Diaspora people living today is descended from ancient Egyptians.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @Sundjata If you showed an image of a Roman smiting a gaul, (if there were such images) you would be hard-pressed to spot a difference in phenotype.
To the contrary, Kalonji just recently posted a great piece directly demonstrating this double standard, noting that some of the skin tone and phenotypic variation in ancient Macedonia is even wider ranging than that seen between most Egyptian and so-called "Nubian" portraiture/art.
quote: It's funny how historical evidence gets dismissed as picture spam when it doesn't support your fictitious view of the past.
I simply do not engage in picture spam. It is a silly and childish game of eye-ball anthropology that can never play as substitute for more reliable data, such as language, culture, and biology. Those who rely on art work I've come to realize are weak in regards to synthesizing hard data so they try to lower everyone's standards to the subjective realm of 3,000 year old art. I can easily post images that support what I'm saying while dismissing yours and insisting that yours support mine all along anyways. It is all subjective, unscientific and distracting.
quote: By insisting certain phrases are 'debunked' or defunct you just seem to be denying the obvious, and hiding behind the political correct vagueness of the prevailing scientific establishment.
PC is the antithesis of racist expression, no? Is the free expression of racist ideology that one believes in wholeheartedly not the extreme of what you're suggesting is an extreme leftist approach from anthropology circles? So if you attribute one extreme to one camp why is it not clear that you don't belong to the opposing camp? Anyone can throw around ad hominem attacks, especially when they're too lazy to address the actual evidence on the ground, right? That the no race arguments make the best sense is of no consequence, right?
quote: You believe in race when it suits you, i.e. when you want to construct the idea of a single 'African' race. Why are 'Elongated African features' (Hamitic) only found in the parts of Africa that face Eurasia?
Such features are found everywhere and even within the same family and among isolated peoples who have never had contact with Eurasians. Such people are also some of the darkest people on earth and have elongated limb proportions. A case of admixture among these groups would seem to have had an effect of more than just a few cranio-facial features that are so coveted by the race theorists.
quote: If it was an indigenous adaptation why isn't it found among Nigerians?
It is. Even if it wasn't, how is the environment of Nigeria similar to the Horn or Nile Valley?
quote:I think there's mileage in the Hamitic hypothesis yet.
Yet you're alone in a sea of doubt. No one stands with you. You were left behind with Seligman.
quote:All this is aside from the point of Egyptians looking the same now as they did in Dynastic times, and by their own artwork clearly distinct from negroid nehesu.
Some nehesu were not depicted as distinct from Egyptians as shown to you and in some cases some Egyptians depicted themselves similarly to what you deem is standard "nehesu". Your use of the term "Negroid" is a ridiculous red herring.
quote: Images such as that from Horemhab's tomb are stereotypes, of course, even charicatures, but they weren't arrived at arbitrarily.
Of course not. Some people south of Egypt approached that resemblance, some looked different. Africa is very diverse. Always has been.
quote:Nubians in Egyptian art were usually shown as bound captives,
This is indeed false, there are images of nehesu mercenaries and members of the royal family. nehesu seemed to be a generic term describing people to the south of Egypt and relations with the various peoples there were different. For instance, during the 17th dynasty Egyptians were being helped by the Medjay in their expulsion of the Asiatic Hyksos while at the same time, other Medjay, along with Kushites were raiding settlements in upper Egypt.
quote: sometimes awaiting excution, or as enemies in battle being scattered in a disorderly mass, or as tribute paying subjects (rather than gift-be [QUOTE]aring royals as you fondly imagine). Egyptianized Nubians like Kemist and Maiherpri were exceptiona.
See above. Also, there is no evidence that Kemsit or Maiherpri were non-Egyptian (or born outside of Egypt). Whatever this is based on, it is not textual evidence.
quote:Indeed Egyptians used Nubian mercenaries, sometimes against other Nubians. Later, of course, Nubians used Egyptian mercenaries, again against other Nubians!
Mercenaries were also used against Asiatics, as noted. Asiatics were never used against "Nehesu".
quote:By the way Egyptians used black Sudanese mercenaries well into medieval times. The European crusaders they came up against recognized the blacks as something different from the Egyptians, for the Egyptians were lumped together with 'Saracens'.
This has nothing to do with ancient Egypt.
quote:The ultimate source of the Egyptian language and religion is also irrelevant to the question of continuity since dynastic times. If Egyptians are indeed of horn African stock, however, you've got to wonder how it can be that no comparably advanced civilization of at least equal antiquity is found in the south.
This is an argument from genetic determinism that has nothing to do with how archaeologists view state formation, which has more to do with sedentism, availability of resources, and social stability, which all in some way relate to geography (in this case, the Nile). Africa is dynamic and Egyptian civilization saw the right conditions to sprout at the right time.
Dumb question logically as well, it's like me asking if Greeks came from Anatolia, then why wasn't there a comparable civilization at that time in Anatolia. This question is a non-sequitur.
quote: Where are Somalia's pyramids or hieroglyphics? One thing's for sure, Somalis don't descend from actual Ancient Egyptians. Only modern Egyptians can make such a claim.
See above. I guess Pyramid building is in some people's DNA.
What an amateur.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
@JustCallMeJari I don't think I've proven your point, as I always said Nubia was a mixture of caucasoids and negroids, but with more of the latter, and more admixed, hence members of the same dynasty might look more like one sort of the other.
The fact remians that there are two distinct types being demonstrated by that little selection. Sure Nordic Teutons and Mediterranean Latins also represent different caucasian types. However, phenotypically, the Hamitic Horn Africans and North Africans look as much like either Teutons or Romans as they do like negroes. Did not an editor of 'Essence' magazine complain about the Somali model Iman that she looks like a white woman dipped in chocolate? Are Somalia or Ethiopia less humid than than other African countries similarly close to the equator? I don't think this argument holds up.
@Truthcentric. I love how afrocentrists and their friends call people who tell the truth about ancient Egyptian history 'racists'. It used to be an insult. Quite obviously 'caucasian' is still used as a racial, anthropolical term. If the police find a white body, in the US, and a coroner or pathologist examines it, they say 'a caucasian'. If they find a black one, however they say 'African American', because 'African' has become a polite euphemism for 'black' or 'negro'. This would be fine if Africa was a race rather than a place. Black Americans are not 'Africans' any more than white ones are Germans or Irish or whatever their distant ancestors were. Actual Africans include people of all different races, several of which are old enough to be considered indigenous, despite ostensibly lacking any black element.
I am fully aware that the Egyptians subjected the Libyans and Syrians to the same indignities as the Nubians suffered, at least in their visual propaganda. Fundamentally Nubians were for Egyptians just another enemy, to be defeated, subjugated and exploited. They were not part of the proto-ummah that was the world of Ma'at. There's nothing very filial about the relationship between the two peoples.
If you are not believers in an Egyptian diaspora into sub-saharan Africa (like my chum Raidio1 on youtube) I wonder what probelm you have with the notion of Egyptians still being in Egypt, the same as they were. Do you then condemn the black Americans (primarily) who call modern Egyptians 'invaders' 'hairy Arabs' 'neanderthals' and worse, and who call Egypt 'our land' and the ancients 'our ancestors'?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
rahotep101 - You used the word Caucasoid above. Did you mean Caucasoid in the sense of narrow nose, thin lips. Or did you mean Caucasoid in the sense of Albinos with narrow nose, thin lips?
I mean, you do understand that the first refers to a phenotype. The other refers to the White (Albino) subspecies of humans often erroneously called Europeans (Asians actually).
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Rahotep101- You have been literally unable to provide a single peer-reviewed paper that supports your claims. All you have is your opinions.
In the mean time, the peer-reviewed studies presented herein still stand, undressed by you. All you have done is resorted to pathetic strawman fallacies.
As a matter of fact, my last posts addressed to you were ignored, why is that? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Told you he wouldn't last.
They're all the same, come here spewing racist nonsense; but when confronted with provable truth and facts, they disappear.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
.
Students of America's most well known Afrocentric Egypt oriented lecturer and tour leader Ashra Kwesi:
..shame on a brother
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^What exactly does that idiot have to do with what's being discussed here? If cass could afford a plane ticket I'm sure he'd do the same thing.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
CB
Just post the Kemp dendogram... wherein the light skinned North African type, represented by the modern Cairo samples, fall short of approaching dynastic and predynastic material, with the exception of some late dynastic samples. There is a clear trend visible on that dendogram, with (pre)dynastic Egyptian samples - originally resembling material to the south of Egypt - going towards the phenotypical diversity visible in modern Egypt, as time progresses. That should end the discussion right there.
This presentation just screams TYPOLOGICAL. You are still stuck in the 50s of the 20th century, wherein populations are phenotypically fixed and only migration of types can explain intermediate and deviating looks. Like Keita says, you fail to look at skeletal traits in an adaptive context.
The tribute bearing Nehesy in the Bantu category are much more likely to be genetically tied to the Puntites in the Hamitic category, than either is to the rest of the peoples in your preposterous Bantu category, despite their broad looks.
Bantu is a linguistic category, not a physical ''type'', and they don't collectively look like what you depict on your slide, because they don't represent a type.
Bantu speakers vary way more in cranial traits than the folks in your Hametic category.
I will discuss this in the third part of my vid briefly.
Your blatant idiocy shows, because you've placed two depictions of the same pharao - the one wearing the crown with the double serpent - in two different categories, Bantu and Hametic.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^What's that video link again kalonji?
As for the laughable "Rah", he keeps shooting himself in the foot with his own information. He lists the Nubians as unrelated "Bantu". But the Nubians, as Kemp's dengrograms show and scientific studies show are ethnically the CLOSEST people to the ancient Egyptians.
SO much for those "unrelated" "Bantu" .. lmao..
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
First vid, still kinda unrefined though, in terms of cadance, especially at the end. Astenb gave me a couple of points as well. Will polish it in the next few dayz, but just to let everyone know where its at.
Oh yeah, and Casserites, if you're reading this, thanks for your quotes on how the Greeks/Romans distinguished themselves from Northern Europeans. I used some of them in my vid, sucker!!!
LOL
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: rahotep101 - You used the word Caucasoid above. Did you mean Caucasoid in the sense of narrow nose, thin lips. Or did you mean Caucasoid in the sense of Albinos with narrow nose, thin lips?
I mean, you do understand that the first refers to a phenotype. The other refers to the White (Albino) subspecies of humans often erroneously called Europeans (Asians actually).
I find it ironic that you can accuse others of spewing ignorant racist nonsense when you come out with stuff like that! Albinism is the inability to produce melanin pigment, hence not only powder white sakin but white hair and pink eyes due to red bloodcells showing through. I don't know if you've been to Europe, but if that's what you're expecting, you're in for a shock! Albinism is an affliction that can affect members of all human races, and various animal species. It results from a recessive gene and it would be difficult to breed a species of albinos.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^^^ You will have to do like Most people when it comes to Mike111, Ignore him. He is a racist who advocates that whites are sub-humans and defects and everything he spouts is based off of his own opinion.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^What exactly does that idiot have to do with what's being discussed here? If cass could afford a plane ticket I'm sure he'd do the same thing.
"Provide evidence that Egyptians remained phenotypically the same for five thousand years. A claim which you continue to make without offering evidence, here's your chance."
The video shows people from America who believe that the phenotype of Egyptians has been changed by various invasions can then go to Egypt and point at someone and accuse them of being of that invader ancestry. You may know better but many other people do not and they take the information about various foreign occupations of Egypt and think they can tell who is who by looking.
It's a replacement theory that is being promoted. Are there migration numbers large enough to prove it?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^So what? His views for instance, have nothing to do with mine and I happen to agree that Egyptian phenotypes have not remained constant for the past 5,000 years. That's a far cry from me traveling to Egypt and telling some random person that he doesn't belong there. That's ignorant. About as ignorant as you assuming that by injecting this garbage you're making some kind of point.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
To add to what Zaharan posted and the studies I presented earlier
quote:This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt—such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)—show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations.
-- F. X. Ricaut and M. Waelkens (2008)
Look at Brace (2005) and you will obviously see modern Egyptians separated from the ancient Egyptians:
As a matter of fact, Zakrzewski (2002) found that the late period Egyptians were cranially distinct from earlier specimens:
"The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late Period Group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from ‘Africans’ as a whole (Keita 1995). In his classic study of 17 global cranial series, Howlls (1973) found that this population clustered with tropical Africans or northern Europeans depending on the clustering analysis technique used, and similarity to Aegean populations has also been described (Musgrave and Evans 1980). The Late Period sample has been described as either a Saite population from the Delta area or as an intrusive Greek population living in Egypt (Berry et al. 1967). Further research comparing this sample to other Saite and Greek samples is required to locate the geographic origin of this group- this study merely shows that it is distinct from the preceding populations."-Zakrzewski (2002)Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
rahotep101 - I do hope that you understand that as a "Modern" European, you are either a Germanic, like the young man above, or a Slav, or a Turk.
Here is how The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-118 A.D.) describes Germans in his book Tacitus: Germany Book 1 [1]
I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.
Whereas today, Red hair is the most "RARE" of all hair colors. How did you go from millions and millions of Red haired Germans?
Admixture with the indigenous Black Europeans. Thus you are no longer "PURE" Albinos. Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Ausar why is this garbage allowed in this thread?? This has nothing to do with the Topic at hand and is nothing but passive trolling...
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^My thoughts exactly...
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
What peer-reviewed publication makes the claim that Egyptians now have a different colour or phenotype to their ancient ancestors? I haven't seen the least evidence to suggest any change in the fundamental makeup of Egyptian society from the Old Kindom to this present day. I don't know why anyone would even try to suggest such a change, unless they were trying to link Egypt's past glory to some other group.
Anthropological studies seem often to contradict. Data can be assessed by various criteria and different results can arise, as Keita himself has admitted. It all seems a bit equivocal, so I prefer to stick to historical evidence.
That said, The pooled samples, on the chart Zarahan provides, (Kemp) support the idea of general continuity from ancient times to the present for Egypt in general. Modern and Ancient Egyptians are placed closer together than any other groups. (Close to Nubia, but closer to Greece than to Negroid Africa. The compilers of this study obviously think there is such a thing as a negro race, it seems! Nubians and Ethiopians are on a completely different branch to the negroids, according to that. Keita has some work to do in order to discredit the Hamitic hypothesis!
Brace and Irish both broadly concluded that the population was little changed in Egypt since remote Antiquity. 'Egyptians were Egyptians'. That said Egyptianness wasn't contingent on genetics, in the first place,but culture and allegiance. The Saite pharaohs were as great as the earliest ones, and just as patriotically Egyptian whether or not they had Libyan blood too.
As for adaptive context, I've yet to hear a reason why Sudanese should look different from Nigerians, or why there should be both narrow and broad featured Nubians, both inhabiting regions of identical climate. I'm not saying people manifesting either negroid or hamitic traits couldn't be closely related, but the particular genes for these features surely came from different places.
I was in error using the term 'Bantu' but it somehow sounds nicer than 'negroid'. I think my meaning was cear. It seems the two Nubian statues are both usually identified as Taharqa, so woops and well spotted! I've seen the first image identified as Tanutamani, sometimes, however. You must admit the two statues have completely different features. If you came to these images blind you would be unlikely to come to the conclusion that they were of the same ethnicity, let alone that they were the same individual.
The general point withstands that bombshell.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @Truthcentric. I love how afrocentrists and their friends call people who tell the truth about ancient Egyptian history 'racists'. It used to be an insult.
If you're not racist, how do you explain the following quote by you:
quote:Posted earlier by rahotep101: The ultimate source of the Egyptian language and religion is also irrelevant to the question of continuity since dynastic times. If Egyptians are indeed of horn African stock, however, you've got to wonder how it can be that no comparably advanced civilization of at least equal antiquity is found in the south. Where are Somalia's pyramids or hieroglyphics?
Is the above argument not based on a racist belief in genetic determinism?
And I find it hilarious that you don't bother refuting the AAPA's position on whether or not race exists. Of course, given your evasive tendencies that is not surprising.
quote:If you are not believers in an Egyptian diaspora into sub-saharan Africa (like my chum Raidio1 on youtube) I wonder what probelm you have with the notion of Egyptians still being in Egypt, the same as they were.
False dichotomy. One need not belief in Egyptians leaving Egypt to populate sub-Saharan Africa to think that the modern population may have changed phenotype due to historical gene flow from Europe and Southwest Asia.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
rahotep101 - Oh what a disappointment you are!
Your response to me is an accusation of prejudice?
Damn boy, how about trying to refute my logic or facts. You can't of course, but at least make a go at it. For appearances, if nothing else.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:What peer-reviewed publication makes the claim that Egyptians now have a different colour or phenotype to their ancient ancestors?
Uh... Did you not read the citation of Zakrzewski (2002) I posted? If Late Dynastic Egyptians are distinct from preceding specimens, then what the heck makes you think that modern Egyptians, who experienced tons more gene flow from the Middle East, is reflective of the ancient population? You have not provided us with one single peer-reviewed paper that makes your claims look legit. Aside from that, I cited Keita (2005), AP Starling and JT Stock (2007) and Brace (2005) dendrogram which shows the Egyptians to also be distinct from the ancient Egyptians. Every single one of those sources you ignored, and have chosen to ask your moronic question regardless.
quote:I haven't seen the least evidence to suggest any change in the fundamental makeup of Egyptian society from the Old Kindom to this present day.
You have got to be kidding me, are you unable to read?
quote:I don't know why anyone would even try to suggest such a change, unless they were trying to link Egypt's past glory to some other group.
Because, it is the truth, supported by all of the peer reviewed publications provided on page one. Would you like me to repeat what I have already presented earlier?
quote:Anthropological studies seem often to contradict. Data can be assessed by various criteria and different results can arise, as Keita himself has admitted. It all seems a bit equivocal, so I prefer to stick to historical evidence.
Dude, what an asinine comment. All of the anthropological studies I have provided point to the same thing. You on the other hand are unable to offer anything.
Of course you prefer historic data, but you ignore the genetic data that shows the modern Egyptians to be heavily admixed, more so in the north. Sorry guy, even your history supports significant migrations from the Middle East and Europe.
quote: That said, The pooled samples, on the chart Zarahan provides, (Kemp) support the idea of general continuity from ancient times to the present for Egypt in general.
LOL. Do you even have a clue as to what pooled samples entail? If you think that Kemp supports your claims, then I suggest you get a clue as to what a pooled sample actually is
quote:Modern and Ancient Egyptians are placed closer together than any other groups. (Close to Nubia, but closer to Greece than to Negroid Africa.
Again, you have a basic understanding. For starters, the two groups at the bottom of the charts are an oddity, and Kemp states as follows:
quote:Dendrogram which shows the relative closeness to or distance from one another of fourteen human populations from Africa and the Mediterranean region. The 'ancient Egyptian' group is a po...oling of data from twenty-one cemeteries including those at Elaphantine and the Late Period cemetery at Giza. The Egypt, Nubia and Africa (Ethiopic) groups form a cluster at some distance from others. But although the Africa ("Negroid") group is placed next to 'Canary Islands (pre-spanish)' group, the substantial difference between them is indicated by how far one has to travel to the right along the branches of the dendrogram before meeting a linkage line.Indeed, the bottom two African groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram. If a three dimensional display were to be adopted this oddity would be lost. After F.W. Rosing, Qubbet el Hawa und Elaphantine; zur Bevolkerungsgechichte von Agypten, Stuttgart and New York 1990, 209, Abb. 134."
Source: Berry Kemp, Ancient Egypt anatomy of a civilization 2nd edition
Go get a clue as to what a pooled sample is- tell me when you give up.
quote:The compilers of this study obviously think there is such a thing as a negro race, it seems! Nubians and Ethiopians are on a completely different branch to the negroids, according to that. Keita has some work to do in order to discredit the Hamitic hypothesis!
See the above explanation Kemp gives in regards to that dendrogram. You are literally running from the unpooled dendrogram.
quote:Keita has some work to do in order to discredit the Hamitic hypothesis!
Why should Keita work on debunking something that has been refuted for the last thirty years? Seriously, the Hamitic hypothesis hasn't been accepted for the last thirty years.
quote:Brace and Irish both broadly concluded that the population was little changed in Egypt since remote Antiquity. 'Egyptians were Egyptians'. That said Egyptianness wasn't contingent on genetics, in the first place,but culture and allegiance. The Saite pharaohs were as great as the earliest ones, and just as patriotically Egyptian whether or not they had Libyan blood too.
LOL. Brace made that statement way back in 1993. In that study he excluded several African groups, which is why I posted an image from his 2005 study that shows modern Egyptians as distinct from ancient Egyptians who are closest to Somalis. Cranial studies clearly contradict what Irish stated based on his dental traits.
Look again at the Brace (2005) dendrogram...
His 2005 results obviously differ from those reported in 1996, with the former being more accurate and reliable than a flawed old study.
quote: As for adaptive context, I've yet to hear a reason why Sudanese should look different from Nigerians, or why there should be both narrow and broad featured Nubians, both inhabiting regions of identical climate. I'm not saying people manifesting either negroid or hamitic traits couldn't be closely related, but the particular genes for these features surely came from different places.
You are surely retarded.
quote:Discussion and Conclusions The results of our analyses suggest that the measurements of the neurocranium carry relevant information about the differentiation of diverse populations, whereas the facial skeleton does so to a minor extent. A possible explanation of this difference between the two regions is that during ontogenesis, the neurocranium attains adult size and shape earlier than the facial skeleton does (Bastir et al. 2006, 2007; Bookstein et al. 2003; Sardi and Ramírez Rozzi 2005; Zollikofer and Ponce de León 2002). Consequently, the facial skeleton is exposed to environmental factors that are different from those acting on the neurocranium during its development, and for a longer time. Accordingly, the development of the face is expected to be more plastic compared to the development of the neurocranium (Bastir and Rosas 2004; Bastir et al. 2006;Kohn 1991; Strand Viðarsdóttir et al. 2002), and thus it can be expected that some genetically based population differences are better revealed by the neurocranium than by the face (Harvati and Weaver 2006).
--Gábor Holló et al., (2010)
Furthermore:
quote:Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
Africa is the most diverse place in the world, with diversity decreasing the further one gets from sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:I was in error using the term 'Bantu' but it somehow sounds nicer than 'negroid'. I think my meaning was cear. It seems the two Nubian statues are both usually identified as Taharqa, so woops and well spotted! I've seen the first image identified as Tanutamani, sometimes, however. You must admit the two statues have completely different features. If you came to these images blind you would be unlikely to come to the conclusion that they were of the same ethnicity, let alone that they were the same individual.
Irrelevant...
K Goode (2009)
An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Results
"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian). These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
I'm still waiting for you to provide any sort of scientific evidence that modern Egyptians are the same as their ancestors. You made the claim, but apparently you are unable to substantiate it with any sort of recent research. Everybody else on the other hand, has provided research that refutes you on every turn. We don't care about what you *think* Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
@Truthcentric Certain I'm sure I wish that country well. I also remain a terriffic admirer of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, if that's any mitigation. I was expressing genuine puzzlement as to why an advanced, literate civilization never arose in Somalia, as there are various factors which might lead one to expect to find one there, maritime connections to India, Arabia and Egypt for instance.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @Truthcentric Certain I'm sure I wish that country well. I also remain a terriffic admirer of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, if that's any mitigation. I was expressing genuine puzzlement as to why an advanced, literate civilization never arose in Somalia, as there are various factors which might lead one to expect to find one there, maritime connections to India, Arabia and Egypt for instance.
OK, fair enough. I misunderstood what you said.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:That said, The pooled samples, on the chart Zarahan provides, (Kemp) support the idea of general continuity from ancient times to the present for Egypt in general. Modern and Ancient Egyptians are placed closer together than any other groups. (Close to Nubia, but closer to Greece than to Negroid Africa.
Your statement doesn’t make sense without the specifics. Samples are being compared, not Modern and Ancient Egyptians in their totality. If you’re going to make that statement, and expect anyone to take you serious, I’d like to see the specifics. Where do these samples hail from, to give credence to your view that modern and Ancient Egyptians are placed closer together than any other group? Your assertion can’t be divorced from these questions, because apparently, if the abstract clusters (''All dynasties'' etc) are taken apart, reduced to local samples and examined separately for relationships with other (African) samples, the relationships you speak of are nowhere to be found, in fact, the exact opposite is found.
quote:As for adaptive context, I've yet to hear a reason why Sudanese should look different from Nigerians
Your above statement doesn’t make sense Sudanese are not one monolithic phenotypic entity, neither are Nigerians, who comprise of more than 250 ethnic groups.
quote:I'm not saying people manifesting either negroid or hamitic traits couldn't be closely related, but the particular genes for these features surely came from different places.
Again, like I said, you’re using an outdated typological approach, wherein (African) populations are static unchanging entities, and gene flow is needed to explain traits that don’t gel with preconceived notions.
quote:You must admit the two statues have completely different features. If you came to these images blind you would be unlikely to come to the conclusion that they were of the same ethnicity, let alone that they were the same individual.
No, and neither will anyone else who is familiar with Anthropology. Populations don’t correspond to types, so there is no reason to conclude that the two statues can’t depict two figures from the same population. Even if the two statues didn't represent the same individual, if you did your homework you would've known that the folks representing the 25th dynasty were all closely related family members. The conflicting conclusions of your two types is self refuting.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
haplotype relates genotype not phenotype Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This guy Rahotep101 is obviously an amateur who has no clue what he's dealing with on this forum of people who actually KNOW what they're talking about and know more about ancient Egyptian biological and cultural anthropology than he can ever dream of.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep101: Why are 'Elongated African features' (Hamitic) only found in the parts of Africa that face Eurasia? If it was an indigenous adaptation why isn't it found among Nigerians?
Elongated African features are adaptations to arid environments. Nigeria is humid so we shouldn't expect Nigeria to have elongated features.
Actually northern Nigeria is quite arid as well due to the encroachment of the Sahara. Which is why people like these live in that area.
Other West Africans with so-called 'Hamite' "Cockasian" features.
And then we have people from humid Central Africa like these Rwandans :
These facial features have NOTHING to do with Eurasians as genetics has proven and the same is true with the Egyptians who are equally black.
Man from rural Giza.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Somalis are primarily Nomadic, so the ideals of "Pyramids" and Written Language meant little to them at that time. However it did not stop them from building Mogidishu, by taking advantage of the Eastern Trade Routes.
The same thing happened in Kilwa and other places in East Africa. During the Middle Ages East Africa was as advanced as any culture rivialing those in the East and West.
"We ... traveled by sea to the city of Kulwa [Kilwa in East Africa]...Most of its people are Zunuj, extremely black...The city of Kulwa is amongst the most beautiful of cities and most elegantly built... Their uppermost virtue is religion and righteousness and they are Shafi'i in rite."
Ibn Battuta, A.D. 1331
I embarked at Maqdashaw [Mogadishu] for the Sawahil [Swahili] country, with the object of visiting the town of Kulwa [Kilwa, Quiloa] in the land of the Zanj.
We came to Mambasa [Mombasa], a large island two days' journey by sea from the Sawihil country. It possesses no territory on the mainland. They have fruit trees on the island, but no cereals, which have to be brought to them from the Sawahil. Their food consists chiefly of bananas and fish.The inhabitants are pious, honourable, and upright, and they have well-built wooden mosques.
-Ibn Bhattuta
Curiously it would be European Powers who would wage unnessesary Wars against the Kilwa and other east Africans. Destroy their cities and disrupt the trade routes which led to further decline and Colonization by Arabs and Europeans.
quote:Posted earlier by rahotep101: The ultimate source of the Egyptian language and religion is also irrelevant to the question of continuity since dynastic times. If Egyptians are indeed of horn African stock, however, you've got to wonder how it can be that no comparably advanced civilization of at least equal antiquity is found in the south. Where are Somalia's pyramids or hieroglyphics?
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @Truthcentric Certain I'm sure I wish that country well. I also remain a terriffic admirer of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, if that's any mitigation. I was expressing genuine puzzlement as to why an advanced, literate civilization never arose in Somalia, as there are various factors which might lead one to expect to find one there, maritime connections to India, Arabia and Egypt for instance.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
No one has yet produced anything to challenge the fact that modern Egyptians look the same as dynastic Egyptians.
If you find the modern Egyptians 'black', by the same token you could find the Yemenis Arabs 'black'.
The Egyptians resemble these as much as they do the southern tribal peoples. Most Egyptians could never scuplt their hair like Tutsis or 'Fuzzy Wuzzy' Bejas. (Who were first-class fighting men despite the silly hair). I doubt you will find straight or wavy haired Africans who are not admixed with Eurasians.
The pictures of the southern or western Africans with co-incidental narrow features are a bit of a red-herring. There is no material archaeology from Rwanda or Nigeria liking these people to non-Africans in prehistorci times. There is such archaeology in Egypt (eg. Sumerian designs on the Narma Palette and the Gelel el-Arak knige, and Afghan lapis-lauli blue eyes set in predynastic ivory figurines.) Rwanda and Nigeria are not a couple of days on foot from Syria or Arabia, by boat from Cyprus and Crere. Egypt is. Egyptian objects have not been found in Rwanda but they have in all the places mentioned to the north and west. Egypt was connected to the world beyond Africa, by trade and migration, since the time before recorded history. The central and west Africans were not.
I'm sure you don't need grand stone monuments, literacy and civic administration in order to be a pious, honoirable, brave and virtuous culture, but these things are kind of vital in order to have any standing as a Civilization. You find them in Crete and Anatolia and Syria and Mesopotamia and India and China, and South America, but you don't find them in many places in Ancient Africa beyond the Egyptian and Sabaean spheres of influence. I guess that's why Afrocentrists are so disinterested in the centre of Africa, and obsessed with a nation that's dissapearing off one corner of the continent, and is partly in Asia anyway.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:The pictures of the southern or western Africans with co-incidental narrow features are a bit of a red-herring. There is no material archaeology from Rwanda or Nigeria liking these people to non-Africans in prehistorci times.
^This is a strawman AND an red herring No one claimed that the cited populations were migrants to the Nile Valley. The images were placed to debunk your nonsense that gene flow is needed to explain the traits that don't conform to your pre-conceived notions.
quote:I'm sure you don't need grand stone monuments, literacy and civic administration in order to be a pious, honoirable, brave and virtuous culture, but these things are kind of vital in order to have any standing as a Civilization. You find them in Crete and Anatolia and Syria and Mesopotamia and India and China, and South America, but you don't find them in many places in Ancient Africa beyond the Egyptian and Sabaean spheres of influence.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Did the Egyptians influence the following Southern predynastic protostates, if so, how?
Where are European/West Asian examples of late fourth millenium BC state formation?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
rahotep101 the above picture is hard to make out because it's shadowy.
One of the blacks on this site going by the name of "Truthcentric" who pretends he's a pro-black white guy believes that the ancient Egyptians are probably most related to the people directly south of them in Sudan rather than Ethiopia or Somalia.
So a good comparison to ancient Egyptian might be a Sudanese and someone who is from the Middle East. or some mixture of both North and South. If man did not originate in Egypt she must have some form somewhere else before that.
I could be wrong it might be Ireland, you know that whole Eurocentric Ramesses red hair theory.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:One of the blacks on this site going by the name of "Truthcentric" who pretends he's a pro-black white guy believes that the ancient Egyptians are probably most related to the people directly south of them in Sudan rather than Ethiopia or Somalia.
^lol, lioness thinks she has a friend. Comradery by virtue of their "non-Blackness", how cute. Even referring to truth as one of the blacks in her attempts at objectifying ["trying to racialize"] her targets. Too bad this new found relationship won't last once Ra is ran back to stormfront. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: No one has yet produced anything to challenge the fact that modern Egyptians look the same as dynastic Egyptians.
If you find the modern Egyptians 'black', by the same token you could find the Yemenis Arabs 'black'.
Damn Boy, you're stupid - and ignorant. Those are not Yemeni Arabs, they are Turk/Arab Mulattoes - or as I affectionately call them, Sand Niggers.
This is a Yemeni Arab.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:One of the blacks on this site going by the name of "Truthcentric" who pretends he's a pro-black white guy believes that the ancient Egyptians are probably most related to the people directly south of them in Sudan rather than Ethiopia or Somalia.
^lol, lioness thinks she has a friend. Comradery by virtue of their "non-Blackness", how cute. Even referring to truth as one of the blacks in her attempts at objectifying ["trying to racialize"] her targets. Too bad this new found relationship won't last once Ra is ran back to stormfront.
I think you overlook a third camp. People like Zahi Hawass are not looking to be so called "black African" or "Aryan white" (stormfront types).
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
As with all things, lioness is once again wrong. Turks everywhere, and Turkey the nation, are desperate for European acceptance. For fifty years Turkey has begged and pleaded for EU acceptance. With the last refusal came this reason: Quote - "they are just too different."
Mulattoes often get that. They're not Black, and they're not White. All they can do is pick a side - and hope!
That's your hang-up too, isn't it Lioness? i.e. You're just toooo different!
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
@lioness
^You create those kind of typologies not me. The "Black" camp, the "White" camp, it's all an ignorant distraction to me (like insisting that truth must be "Black"). The only binary opposition here is FACT and FICTION. You are in the FICTION camp.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: No one has yet produced anything to challenge the fact that modern Egyptians look the same as dynastic Egyptians.
A lot of the previously posted information that you deliberately ignored spoke directly to that issue. However, the challenge was issued to you, not us, so the onus is on YOU to show that they haven't changed in any appreciable way. You never took on that responsibility and instead decided to picture spam your way out of this, which will not work.
For instance. A photo of what subjectively appears to be a cold-adapted (short-armed) Egyptian is not a substitute for a skeletal measurement of the same individual showing him to be tropically adapted. This is why slapping photos on a page is a poor replacement for science. Pasting photos and arguing from mere assertion that the photos support your position is a game of circular reasoning, not to be found in true-to-life academic discourse.
However, once you're able to refute Brace (2005) showing the earliest Egyptians grouping with modern Nubians instead of modern Egyptians, Kemp (2006) showing an obvious change in northern Egypt as "Nubians" group closer with the ancient Egyptians than the sample from Cairo. Until you explain Schillac's (2009) data showing a progressive change from the pre-dynastic, to the dynastic, to NK and then the Greek and Roman periods (also shown by Zakrzweski, 2007), or show that modern Egyptians have tropical limb proportions to the same degree as the ancient Egyptians, then you are simply spewing hot air and are doing nothing more than trying to increase your post count. You will soon be ignored or demoted to the status of troll if you don't quickly learn how to formulate a proper argument.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^That there need not be a long-term genetic basis for determining growth in limb extremities was explained to you in this study:
Allen's Rule documents a century-old biological observation that strong positive correlations exist among latitude, ambient temperature, and limb length in mammals. Although genetic selection for thermoregulatory adaptation is frequently presumed to be the primary basis of this phenomenon, important but frequently overlooked research has shown that appendage outgrowth is also markedly influenced by environmental temperature.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^And I've explained to you the limits of epi-genetics vs. genetics/long-term adaptations in evaluating "super-tropical" limb indices. That you don't understand the concept of plasticity is not my problem (hence, a white person will never tan to get as dark as a southern Sudanese merely by moving to/living in southern Sudan).
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^And I've explained to you the limits of epi-genetics vs. genetics/long-term adaptations in evaluating "super-tropical" limb indices. That you don't understand the concept of plasticity is not my problem (hence, a white person will never tan to get as dark as a southern Sudanese merely by moving to/living in southern Sudan).
The study doesn't address any issue of your imaginary extreme transformation of individuals into that another race.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^What you've just attributed to me makes no sense. I'm done with you until you can grow a brain.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
The study addresses the issue of lower limb and appendage length being a result of surrounding enviromental temperature. It says nothing about suntans or extreme morphological transformations. What you said makes absolutely no sense.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Mike, sweetheart, A is Yemen, B is Zanzibar. Yor're surpassing yourself in the buffoonery stakes.
Kalonji, all you did was disprove the idea that facial types are related to climate, because narrow featured Tutsis and broad featured Hutus live in precisely the same region (when they aren't killing each other). Norethern Nigerians may have narrower features due to admixture with Saharan Berbers, rather than anything else. Berber customs such as facial tattooing are not unknown in that region.
The map of Egypt and lower Nubia doesn't seem very far out of the Middle Eastern sphere of influence, by the way, when you put it in a wider context. (Compare that small region to the vastness of Africa in the map above. Qustul is not far south of the present Egyptian/Sudanese border). Nonetheless I can't think of any great Sudanese ruins that rival Egypt's and that predate the Egyptian conquest of Nubia. Sorry.
There are Eritraeans and Ethiopians who look more like Egyptians than central Sudanese do, but I suspect this has more to do with Semitic influence from Arabia. The Axumite civilization strikes me as admixed black/Arabian, owing much to the Sabaeans. (Interestingly Christian Ethiopia nearly conquered all of Arabia shortly before the time of Muhammad. It's unfortunate they did not consolidate their rule over the region. Islam might never have been born and the world could have been spared a load of trouble...)
For my part, to clarify, I am neither pro nor anti black. I don't see much point being overly proud of or prejudiced against racial background as it's not something people chose or achieved. It's an accident of fate whether one is a negro African or a white European or a (whatever shade of brown) Egyptian. However it seems more than obvious that modern Egyptians are the direct descendants of and do look the same of the ancient Egyptians, and they don't need outsiders impugning their heritage or forcing labels on them not of their choosing.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Of course many [if not most] modern Egyptians are descendants of ancient Egyptians. What is being argued (and what has been demonstrated) is that over the course of millenia, the Egyptians have picked up relationships with other groups with whom they've come in contact. This is undeniable.
quote:Koljon, all you did was disprove the idea that facial types are related to climate, because narrow featured Hutus and broad featured Tutsis live in precisely the same region (when they aren't killing each other).
That Egyptians had limb-length indices similar to people like the Hutu and Tutsi DOES speak to geographic orientation, hence, the idea that the ancient Egyptians were pretty much Africans.
quote:There are Eritraeans and Ethiopians who look more like Egyptians than central Sudanese do, but I suspect this has more to do with Semitic influence from Arabia. The Axumite civilization strikes me as admixed black/Arabian, owing much to the Sabaeans.
Discussed ad naseum. Genetic data on the Semitic and Cushitic speaking Ethiopians do not reveal any fundamental differences. It has been demonstrated as well that Sabeans only had a marginal influence that didn't involve any mass migration. Archaeology shows local African pottery predominating on all levels of society at pre-Askumite settlements and royal epigraphy which indeed note contacts with South Arabia is actually written in characters with phonetic properties ancestral to Ge'ez and not South Arabian (Sabean).
If you are so neutral then why is it that you bend over backwards to attribute any African cultural advancement to outside influence?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Norethern Nigerians may have narrower features due to admixture with Saharan Berbers, rather than anything else.
Provide evidence for this claim.
quote:The map of Egypt and upper Nubia doesn't seem very far out of the Middle Eastern sphere of influence, by the way, when you put it in a wider context. (Compare that small region to the vastness of Africa in the map above. Qustul is not far south of the present Egyptian/Sudanese border). Nonetheless I can't think of any great Sudanese ruins that rival Egypt's and that predate the Egyptian conquest of Nubia. Sorry.
Tell me, do you understand the significance of the following:
"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472)
quote:There are Eritraeans and Ethiopians who look more like Egyptians than central Sudanese do, but I suspect this has more to do with Semitic influence from Arabia. The Axumite civilization strikes me as admixed black/Arabian, owing much to the Sabaeans. (Interestingly Christian Ethiopia nearly conquered all of Arabia shortly before the time of Muhammad. It's unfortunate they did not consolidate their rule over the region. Islam might never have been born and the world could have been spared a load of trouble...)
How many times must you be told that we don't care about your opinion. The Sudanese are closest to the ancient Egyptian period. Whether it be cranial analysis, biological, cultural etc.,
On to Ethiopians, we know that they are African through and through:
quote:Y-chromosomal SNPs are used in phylogenetical studies because in a paternal lineage the Y-SNP “set” is only changed by mutational events. Lower migration rates of males in the past in local scale cause different haplogroup distributions in closed populations. In the actual haplogroup tree (ISOGG 2008) 20 main haplogroups (A-T) are listed.
The Y-chromosomes of 173 unrelated males from Ethiopia (most of them contain to the Amharics) were analysed. For typing, a set of 40 SNPs, which include most of the main haplogroups of the actual phylogenetical tree, were used in combination with the Multiplex PCR Kit (Qiagen) and the SNaPshot™ Multiplex Kit (Applied Biosystems). The ABI PRISM™ 310 Genetic Sequenzer was used for allele calling.
The distribution of the five detected main haplogroups was calculated against the total number of the 173 analysed samples. 40 males (23.1% of analysed samples) belong to the haplogroup A*. 88 samples (50.9%) were related to haplogroup E*, 43 (24.9%) to haplogroup J* and one sample (0.6%) to each haplogroup F* and G*.
Source: Distribution of Y-chromosomal SNP-haplogroups between males from Ethiopia (2009)
I'd like to see sources for you admixture claims, and claims of a Near Eastern influence.
I find it funny how you like to attribute everything in Africa to the Middle East while offering no source or evidence but your own opinion
quote:For my part, to clarify, I am neither pro nor anti black. I don't see much point being overly proud of or prejudiced against racial background as it's not something people chose or achieved. It's an accident of fate whether one is a negro African or a white European or a (whatever shade of brown) Egyptian. However it seems more than obvious to anyone objective that modern Egyptians are the direct descendants of and do look the same of the ancient Egyptians, and they don't need outsiders impugning their heritage or forcing labels on them not of their choosing.
Come on Rahotep. In this entire thread you have offered no evidence to support that modern Egyptians look the same as ancient Egyptians, especially in light of the cranial data provided herein that show modern Egyptians to be distinct from earlier Egyptians.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: However it seems more than obvious that modern Egyptians are the direct descendants of and do look the same of the ancient Egyptians, and they don't need outsiders impugning their heritage or forcing labels on them not of their choosing. [/QB]
they are arguing that modern Egyptians are descended from a nation's population overrun by foreigners from Arabia and their slaves
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Kalonji, all you did was disprove the idea that facial types are related to climate, because narrow featured Hutus and broad featured Tutsis live in precisely the same region
I fail to see how co-existing in the same region in modern times presents an obstacle to any position held me, (scratching my head). You used the same argument earlier (with the Sudanese who were supposed to look like Nigerians). Fill me in here.
quote:Norethern Nigerians may have narrower features due to admixture with Saharan Berbers, rather than anything else.
Then you shouldn't have such a hard time showing it with evidence. Northern Europeans may have blonde hair because of Alien admixture. <--That is the equivalent of what I'm dealing with here, and what you conjecture compares favorably with.
quote:The map of Egypt and upper Nubia doesn't seem very far out of the Middle Eastern sphere of influence, by the way, when you put it in a wider context.
What conjoining region does not exert influence on its neighbor? What are African languages and (derived) script doing in Eurasia? What are damn near ubiquitous Nemes' and Sphinxes doing in Assyria and the rest of West Asia? What are African pestle and mortars and other Mesolithic Nile Valley tools doing in the Levant?
quote:Nonetheless I can't think of any great Sudanese ruins that rival Egypt's and that predate the Egyptian conquest of Nubia. Sorry.
I can't think of any Northern European ruins that rival and predate those of the Ancient Romans, sorry. I can't think of an Ancient European culture that didn't borrow damn near everything from their neighbors, sorry. Rahotep, why is there a period called ''orientalization'' in Ancient Greek history? LOL.
quote:and do look the same of the ancient Egyptians,
Rahotep, what did the people of the proto kingdom (depicted on that map above) in Southern Egypt look like? Hint, look at the same Kemp dendogram that you preferred over the more elborate Kemp dendogram earlier, look for ''Predynastic''. Can you also explain to me what Sudanese royal folks are doing in royal cemetery T Naqada II, ruling native Egyptians, if they were picking their nose, waiting for Egyptians to enlighten them?
Why did the founder of the 25th dynasty go back to the south when he put those Northerners in their place if it was backwater compared to Egypt?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I think I got Hutus and Tutsis mixed up in my last comment, so I've edited that. The Tutsis were narrower featured ethnic group. Point reamins. Regarding limb length, as far as I know this has remained consistent among Egypt's population, so has nothing to do with whether Egyptians have changed over the years. It also seems pelvic proportions make them more similar to Europeans, with ancient Egypian women having relatively narrow hips. This is supposedly a cold adaptation. If Egyptians are tropically adapted, it may have to do with the fact that North Africa was once more tropical than it is now. Even in dynastic times there were lions and hippos and possibly ostriches in Egypt, but no longer. (How much of this is due to hunting as opposed to climate change I can't judge). There was certainly heavier rainfall until about 5000 years ago.
I am not bending over backwards to do anything of the sort, I am stating the case as it presents itself. (I'd never heard of stormfront either before now.) I don't know how it can be described as 'Eurocentric' to state the simple fact that Ancient Egyptians looked pretty much like modern Coptic Egyptians (Egyptians who converted to Islam were still Copts in the ethnic sense of the word), or to say that the rise of Egyptian civilization owed to its contacts with Mesopotamia which was the cradle of civilization. Mesopotamia is not in Euorpe, last I checked, and modern Iraqis or Iranians are not people I have any particular predisposition towards.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
I'm done responding to you Rahotep Your posts are full of conjecture and errors. You have it totally in reverse. Europeans are among the peoples with the widest hips. Modern Africans, including Ancient Egyptians, are generally gracile, do you know what that means?
Perhaps the other posters will entertain your conjecture and lack of knowledge about common anthropological facts. Good luck.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Rahotep I think you suffer from selective Ignorance. Not to be disrespectful like many people you choose to Ignore anything associated with Africa.
Kerma
The main feature of the town was a large solid brick platform which in its latest phase stood about 60 ft (18 m), high and measured about 170 x 85 ft (52 x 25.8 m). This building is known as the "Western Deffufa" (after an old Nubian word for a mud brick structure) in order to distinguish it from the "Eastern Deffufa," a similarly sized but lower brick building that rises in the cemetery. It is now known that these buildings were temples. The Western Deffufa was a huge brick platform on top of which there was probably a small shrine or object of worship. The "Eastern Deffufa" was associated with the worship or preparation for burial of the dead kings.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: (Compare that small region to the vastness of Africa in the map above. Qustul is not far south of the present Egyptian/Sudanese border). Nonetheless I can't think of any great Sudanese ruins that rival Egypt's and that predate the Egyptian conquest of Nubia. Sorry.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QB] I think I got Hutus and Tutsis mixed up in my last comment, so I've edited that. The Tutsis were narrower featured ethnic group. Point reamins. Regarding limb length, as far as I know this has remained consistent among Egypt's population, so has nothing to do with whether Egyptians have changed over the years.
The most comprehensive study so far was by Zakrzewski whose samples did not extend past the middle kingdom.
quote: It also seems pelvic proportions make them more similar to Europeans, with ancient Egypian women having relatively narrow hips. This is supposedly a cold adaptation.
LOL, as Kalonji points out you demonstrate your basic ignorance of human anatomy and evolutionary theory by claiming that having "narrow hips" is a cold adaptation. As a matter of fact, the way that human females give birth to large-brained infants is by extending the pelvic bone outward, as opposed to Neanderthals who gave birth by expanding pelvic girth. This is why we have so much trouble with child birth because modern humans, relative to Neanderthals, are tropically adapted (have narrow hips).
Raxter (2011) actually reported intermediate figures for bi-llaic breadth which is consistent with a sub-tropical (as opposed to cold/high latitude) environment. Brachial indices were described as "super-tropical".
quote: If Egyptians are tropically adapted, it may have to do with the fact that North Africa was once more tropical than it is now. Even in dynastic times there were lions and hippos and possibly ostriches in Egypt, but no longer. (How much of this is due to hunting as opposed to climate change I can't judge). There was certainly heavier rainfall until about 5000 years ago.
You obviously do not know the definition of "tropical" which literally denotes the region in between the tropic of cancer and tropic of Capricorn. Your hypothesis is clearly rejected by basic latitudinal knowledge. Also, it is not a tropical environment that produces elongated limb proportions but mean annual temperature. This is why Ruff (2002) found that Australo-Oceanic populations were not tropically adapted because they live a life-style that requires daily oceanic activity along the coast that reduces the annual mean temperatures they're exposed to. Likewise, the temperatures in the Egyptian Sahara (and desert environments in general) drop sharply during night fall. Anthropologists are aware of this which is why Keita was surprised to report tropically adapted Africans were also present in bronze age Algeria (which extends further south than Egypt).
quote:I am not bending over backwards to do anything of the sort, I am stating the case as it presents itself. (I'd never heard of stormfront either before now.) I don't know how it can be described as 'Eurocentric' to state the simple fact that Ancient Egyptians looked pretty much like modern Coptic Egyptians (Egyptians who converted to Islam were still Copts in the ethnic sense of the word), or to say that the rise of Egyptian civilization owed to its contacts with Mesopotamia which was the cradle of civilization. Mesopotamia is not in Euorpe, last I checked, and modern Iraqis or Iranians are not people I have any particular predisposition towards.
The reason it is Eurocentric is because it relies heavily on simplistic models that are not dynamic and it depends on an overall ignorance of the actual data.
For instance, Egypt owed nothing to Mesopotamia as can be demonstrated and the theories upon which this was based are now discarded and merely referenced for historical context. The suggestion also implies that "Sumerians" conformed to some ideal Caucasoid phenotype based on a "SW Asian" geography when most skeletal and linguistic studies have grouped early Mesopotamians with Dravidians of India. This therefore is Eurocentric since it pretends that there is an Egyptian-European connection via some Mesopotamian proxy that didn't exist in the first place. You are confusing Semites with Sumerians. This is the general framework you've approached this discussion from so it isn't surprising that all of your conclusions are based on erroneous ideas.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Mike, sweetheart, A is Yemen, B is Zanzibar. Yor're surpassing yourself in the buffoonery stakes.
rahotep101 - You know what, I'm starting to like you. You are so ignorant and stupid, you make it EASY for me to look good!
The post of Sultan of Zanzibar was created on 19 October 1856, after the death of Sa'id ibn Sultan, who had ruled Oman and Zanzibar as the Sultan of Oman since 1804. The Sultans of Zanzibar were of a cadet branch of the Al Bu Sa'id Dynasty of Oman.
In 1698, Zanzibar became part of the overseas holdings of Oman, falling under the control of the Sultan of Oman. The Arabs established garrisons at Zanzibar, Pemba, and Kilwa. In 1832, the date varies among sources, Sa'id ibn Sultan moved his capital from Muscat in Oman to Stone Town. He established a ruling Arab elite and encouraged the development of clove plantations, using the island's slave labour.
Damn Boy, have you read ANY history?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I think I got Hutus and Tutsis mixed up in my last comment, so I've edited that. The Tutsis were narrower featured ethnic group. Point reamins. Regarding limb length, as far as I know this has remained consistent among Egypt's population, so has nothing to do with whether Egyptians have changed over the years.
Correction: The crural and brachial indices of the ancient Egyptians found no significant changes from the Early Predynastic throughout the New Kingdom (Zakrzewski 2003). As Raxter (2011) pointed out, climate of Egypt did have a significant effect on some of the Egyptian indices, so it is only logical to assume that the modern population has been more influenced by the environment. So it isn't likely that they have the same, or even similar body proportions
quote:It also seems pelvic proportions make them more similar to Europeans, with ancient Egypian women having relatively narrow hips. This is supposedly a cold adaptation. If Egyptians are tropically adapted, it may have to do with the fact that North Africa was once more tropical than it is now.
You really make me laugh Rahotep, you are simply a puppet of phoenician7.
"These same log shape variables were subjected to two forms of cluster analysis: neighbor-joining (NJ) and unweighted pair-group method using averages (UPGMA) tree analysis. Figure 8 is the NJ tree. It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]."--Holiday TW (2010)
Egyptians and sub-Saharans, and African Americans all had/have a linear body build, unlike Europeans and Euro-Americans. As Holiday stated, the Nubian sample is likely to be immigrant, thus not applicable to actual Sudanese.
quote:Even in dynastic times there were lions and hippos and possibly ostriches in Egypt, but no longer. (How much of this is due to hunting as opposed to climate change I can't judge). There was certainly heavier rainfall until about 5000 years ago.
As I said earlier, how are animals supposed to influence the climate? Because you are implying that animals somehow make a climate "tropical" or not, which makes no sense.
On the question of whether Egypt was once tropical; no, it was not. Egypt in the past was an arid desert environment with short humid phases, not characteristic of tropical environments (non-Arid climates)
Palaeoenvironment and Holocene land use of Djara, Western Desert of Egypt:
quote:"Abstract The results of the interdisciplinary project ACACIA support the assumption of a more humid climate at Djara, on the Egyptian Limestone Plateau, which is a hyper-arid desert today, during the early and mid-Holocene. The ancient plant and animal inventories give new impetus for the suggestion of an interfingering of two climatic regimes, the winter rains from the north and west and the summer monsoonal rains from the south, on the latitude of Djara. A playa sediment sequence, the composition of plant and animal taxa as well as the reconstructed settlement patterns indicate a semi-arid climate with alternating more humid and drier conditions. The concentration of prehistoric sites in the Djara depression points to locally favourable conditions in contrast to the surrounding plateau surface. The widespread catchment and a distinct system of palaeochannels offered fresh water over a period of time due to the run-off from the plateau surface after rain events. Although the ecological conditions were better during the Holocene humid phase than they are today, a sedentary way of life was improbable. The hydrological constraints require altogether highly mobile subsistence strategies. Shells of the Nile bivalve Aspatharia sp (Spathopsis sp.) give evidence for contacts between Djara and the Nile Valley, which remains beside the Egyptian oases an important retreat area with perennially available water. The decrease of radiocarbon dates and related archaeological sites around 6300 BP (c. 5300 cal BC) indicate the depopulation of the Djara region as a consequence of the drying trend. While the drop off of the 14C-dates can also be observed in other desert research areas of the ACACIA-project, we date the end of the Holocene humid phase about 300 years earlier than previously suggested."
"2.1. Climate Today, the Western Desert of Egypt is part of the hyperarid Eastern Sahara (UNESCO, 1977) and belongs to the subtropical desert climate zone (Griffiths, 1987). High temperatures, low humidity and strong winds cause high potential evaporation rates in excess of 5000mm per year (Griffiths, 1972; Haynes 1982; Darius, 1989). In contrast, the interpolated annual precipitation sum is less than 5mm with sparse rain on only 1–5 days per year on average (New et al., 1999). Palaeoenvironmental observations have shown that the regional climate during the Holocene differed from the present situation (e.g. Ritchie et al., 1985; Kutzbach and Liu, 1997; Pachur and Hoelzmann, 2000). Due to oscillations in the Earth’s orbit, summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere rose to peak levels approximately 8% higher than today 11,000 years ago (Berger and Loutre, 1991; deMenocal et al., 2000; Tuenter et al., 2003). The insolation created an enhanced monsoonal summer precipitation in North Africa during the early and mid-Holocene (Holocene humid phase or humid optimum). Other studies postulate both an enhanced summer precipitation from the south, and increased mediterranean winter rains from the west and the north due to stronger westerlies with cyclonic disturbances, as well as an increase in the summer monsoonal rain (Nicholson and Flohn, 1980; Geb, 2000). On the basis of archaeobotanical remains from the Great Sand Sea and the Abu Ballas area Neumann (1989a, b) suggests a maximum precipitation amount of 100mm for the mid-Holocene humid phase. In summary, a generally arid environment with short humid intermediate stages can be deduced (e.g. Bubenzer and Hilgers, 2003)."
--Karin Kindermann et al. (2006)
quote:I am not bending over backwards to do anything of the sort, I am stating the case as it presents itself. (I'd never heard of stormfront either before now.) I don't know how it can be described as 'Eurocentric' to state the simple fact that Ancient Egyptians looked pretty much like modern Coptic Egyptians (Egyptians who converted to Islam were still Copts in the ethnic sense of the word), or to say that the rise of Egyptian civilization owed to its contacts with Mesopotamia which was the cradle of civilization. Mesopotamia is not in Euorpe, last I checked, and modern Iraqis or Iranians are not people I have any particular predisposition towards.
Rahotep101, your Coptic Egyptian claims were debunked the moment you posted in this thread. I really don't know how you can ignore the evidence that suggests the phenotype of Coptics did change and that they are substantially admixed.
The rise of Egyptian civilization was mainly an indigenous process, any gene flow was restricted to lower Egypt
"The results of our analyses suggest that the formation of the ancient Egyptian state likely included a substantial in situ process, with some level of contribution by outside migrants probable. The higher level of population structure in Lower Egypt, relative to Upper Egypt, suggests that such influence and migration by outsiders may not have been widespread geographically."--Irish (2009)
So you have any outside influence restricted to lower Egypt. While Upper Egyptian culture became dynastic civilization.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Rahotep to me is just another troll. He got caught in another thread claiming that the peopling of Algeria is due to the mingling of Black and white slaves. Add to that his lack of basic knowledge on history (the Fayum, Askum, 25th dynasty Egypt), skeletal biology (relation of pelvic dimensions to climate), and 'race', it seems his opinions are absolutely irrelevant.
Some people just don't know when to give up, even when they were defeated long time ago.
Rahotep for example just spouts and repeats old debunked notions like a Eurocentric's parrot.
He claims there have been no civilization in Sub-Saharan Africa when truth is there were more civilizations and centers of advanced culture there than Europe and the 'Near East' combined!
^ With perhaps the exception of Carthage all these states with their advanced cultures developed on their own without any "Eurasian" input.
As for narrow facial features being attributed to Eurasians, my whole point about my posts is that they were NOT. Genetics along with archaeology has proven that such features have existed within the African population for a long time now since prehistoric times and there is NO connection whatsoever to Eurasians.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: rahotep101 the above picture is hard to make out because it's shadowy.
One of the blacks on this site going by the name of "Truthcentric" who pretends he's a pro-black white guy believes that the ancient Egyptians are probably most related to the people directly south of them in Sudan rather than Ethiopia or Somalia...
LMAO
Why must you be so full of lies?? Everyone in here knows that Brandon a.k.a. Truthcentric IS white. His picture was even posted in here a number of times. Is it so hard for you to believe a white person could accept FACTS of ancient Egypt's black African identity and nature?? Over 98% of the studies we cite come from WHITE scholars and scientists. Besides, Truthcentric is not as crazy and desperate as YOU my dear, since it was YOU who once claimed to be a "West African" when you first began posting in this forum, when we all knew otherwise! Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': Rahotep, were you basing your statement on this:
^L'. Why would you suppose Ra was basing any of his statements on a random doctoral dissertation and especially one that rebuts his ignorant assumption that "narrow hips" is a cold adaptation? The opposite manifestation is a well established rule (Allen's rule) and I'd be surprised to see any doctoral thesis contradict it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Silly Girl: That there need not be a long-term genetic basis for determining growth in limb extremities was explained to you in this study:
Allen's Rule documents a century-old biological observation that strong positive correlations exist among latitude, ambient temperature, and limb length in mammals. Although genetic selection for thermoregulatory adaptation is frequently presumed to be the primary basis of this phenomenon, important but frequently overlooked research has shown that appendage outgrowth is also markedly influenced by environmental temperature.
^ Hey dummy, get your dumbass argument back here where it belongs! Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by L': Rahotep, were you basing your statement on this:
^L'. Why would you suppose Ra was basing any of his statements on a random doctoral dissertation and especially one that rebuts his ignorant assumption that "narrow hips" is a cold adaptation? The opposite manifestation is a well established rule (Allen's rule) and I'd be surprised to see any doctoral thesis contradict it.
Because most of his arguments thus far have been reiterating phoenician7's claims. And one of them was in that paper. I had supposed that he was misinterpreting when they say that Egyptians and Nubians have longer superior pubic rami than females like Neanderthals- and then coming to the conclusion that they were cold adapted like Neanderthals.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Ha! The only reason that's even mentioned is because it's a case of sexual dimorphism not seen in most extant humans. Recall in my response above where I noted this difference where in modern humans the female needed to extend the pubic bone in order to compensate for large-brained infant birth. Thus, you'd expect the superior pubic ramus to be more extended in females than males but we see opposite trends in the Egypto-Nubian sample, which I guess is unusual but has nothing to do with cold adaptations.
What an idiot that guy is. Jumping at any tenuous association and looking like a fool in the process.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^He apparently thinks sexual dimorphism can show population relationships, as he tried to make a connection with US whites and Badarians just because they showed the same degrees of sexual dimorphism Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Have uever heerd th song Lola? B careful n watch ya azz
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Besides, Truthcentric is not as crazy and desperate as YOU my dear, since it was YOU who once claimed to be a "West African" when you first began posting in this forum, when we all knew otherwise!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': Provide evidence that Egyptians remained phenotypically the same for five thousand years. A claim which you continue to make without offering evidence, here's your chance.
You get first move
.
These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, Modern Egyptians resemble Sub-Saharan Africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995)
Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Of course there is a resemblance between Modern Egyptians and Sub Saharan Africans you idiot. They are hybrids, which means that they are intermediate between Africans and others.
Nothing any of us have been denying.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Exactly... lol
Lioness, seeing how what you posted is supposed to fulfill the challenge I issued. My challenge:
quote:Posted by L: Provide evidence that Egyptians remained phenotypically the same for five thousand years. A claim which you continue to make without offering evidence, here's your chance.
You get first move
To add to the image Kalonji posted, also from Brace (2005)
As for the measurements Brace used to generate that dendrogram:
1 Nasal height 2 Nasal bone height 3 Piriform aperture height 4 Nasion prosthion length 5 Nasion basion 6 Basion prosthion 7 Superior nasal bone width 8 Simotic width 9 Inferior nasal bone width 10 Nasal breadth 11 Simotic subtense 12 Inferior simotic subtense 13 FOW subtense at nasion 14 MOW subtense at rhinion 15 Bizygomatic breadth 16 Glabella opisthocranion 17 Maximum cranial breadth 18 Basion bregma 19 Basion rhinion 20 Width at 13 (fmt fmt) 21 Width at 14 22 IOW subtense at nasion 23 Width at 22 (fmo fmo) 24 Minimum nasal tip elevation
Howells (1989) found late dynastic Egyptians to cluster with southern Africans or Europeans depending on which algorithm used. I think that may be what Patricia is basing her statement on. The same sample I should note, was found morphologically distinct from the other samples used in Zakrzewski (2002)
As for Keita, which 1995 paper? Oh well, as Kalonji said, nobody is denying it
^Keita's statements made on the modern population he also made in 1996 and 2010 in two of his papers
Nobody ever said the modern Egyptians are the same as the ancient Egyptians however...
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Notice in Brace (2005) that the Naqada Egyptians form a primary cluster with modern and ancient "Nubains" but not with modern Egyptians. If that isn't PROOF of some kind of change or transition, then I don't know what is. That modern Egyptians to a large extent have retained some resemblance to sub-saharan Africans is no surprise but honestly I'm not exactly sure what Smith bases that statement on.
Keita (1995) is simply a review of Keita (1993) and Howell's data pertaining to modern Egyptians I'm unfamiliar with. I'll try to cross reference later.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Also of interest is that the Naqada sample is protodynastic, a period that we know received limited foreign incursions.
Whats with Brace's obsession with the nasal region?
No wonder he fails to differentiate properly between Upper and lower Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by L': ^Exactly... lol
Lioness, seeing how what you posted is supposed to fulfill the challenge I issued. My challenge:
quote:Posted by L: Provide evidence that Egyptians remained phenotypically the same for five thousand years. A claim which you continue to make without offering evidence, here's your chance.
You get first move
To add to the image Kalonji posted, also from Brace (2005)
As for the measurements Brace used to generate that dendrogram:
1 Nasal height 2 Nasal bone height 3 Piriform aperture height 4 Nasion prosthion length 5 Nasion basion 6 Basion prosthion 7 Superior nasal bone width 8 Simotic width 9 Inferior nasal bone width 10 Nasal breadth 11 Simotic subtense 12 Inferior simotic subtense 13 FOW subtense at nasion 14 MOW subtense at rhinion 15 Bizygomatic breadth 16 Glabella opisthocranion 17 Maximum cranial breadth 18 Basion bregma 19 Basion rhinion 20 Width at 13 (fmt fmt) 21 Width at 14 22 IOW subtense at nasion 23 Width at 22 (fmo fmo) 24 Minimum nasal tip elevation
Howells (1989) found late dynastic Egyptians to cluster with southern Africans or Europeans depending on which algorithm used. I think that may be what Patricia is basing her statement on. The same sample I should note, was found morphologically distinct from the other samples used in Zakrzewski (2002)
As for Keita, which 1995 paper? Oh well, as Kalonji said, nobody is denying it
^Keita's statements made on the modern population he also made in 1996 and 2010 in two of his papers
Nobody ever said the modern Egyptians are the same as the ancient Egyptians however...
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Also of interest is that the Naqada sample is protodynastic, a period that we know received limited foreign incursions.
Whats with Brace's obsession with the nasal region?
No wonder he fails to differentiate properly between Upper and lower Egyptians.
Lol, yeah. Does anybody understand his "Clines" theories?
Edit: You're right, misread it :/ his wording is very strange in his 2006 paper because he doesn't include Somalis as sub-Saharan which is weird.
Other than that, it's a pretty good paper with some good images
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
He says people from the same region.. wouldn't that imply relationships?
Brace is quite fond of implicatin relationships where there are none. Note the following for instance:
quote:If South Asia-India-is discounted for the moment, the Somalis at the southernmost extent of this series show that there is a continuum of related groups which, given the Norwegians and Lapps in our European sample, runs all the way from the equator to the arctic circle
quote:his wording is very strange in his 2006 paper because he doesn't include Somalis as sub-Saharan which is weird.
You mean when he said ''hint of Sub Saharan''? Brace did include them as Sub Saharan in his 93 paper.
^the meassurements involving the nasal region. I don't know the meaning of ''width at ..'' meassurements, but it wouldn't surprise me if those pertain to the nasal region as well
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:He says people from the same region.. wouldn't that imply relationships?
Sorry. You're right, I misread it :/
quote:You mean when he said ''hint of Sub Saharan''? Brace did include them as Sub Saharan in his 93 paper.
=
Yeah How can Somalis have only a "hint" of a sub-Saharan component when they are sub-Saharan his wording is bad
Yeah, he did include Somalis as sub-Saharan in his '93 paper. Which really doesn't make sense because he said there isn't a sub-Saharan component when Somalis are shown close to predynastic in one dendrogram.
quote:^the meassurements involving the nasal region. I don't know the meaning of width at .. meassurements, but it would surprise me if those pertain to the nasal region as well
It is weird lol
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:How can Somalis have only a "hint" of a sub-Saharan component when they are sub-Saharan his wording is bad
Indeed. With all the things he has cooked up, I think we might have enough material for a vid.
His most peculiar 93 assertion, is that Predynastic Naqadans and late dynastic Egyptians are more closely related than all others, and elsewhere he notes closer relationships with the former and Somali's, and the latter and North Africans.
Or that he is able to isolate a German from Egyptian material
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ Therein lies the problem with Brace. He attempts to utilize 'newer' methods like his 'clines & clusters' yet at the same time rehashing outdated biases like "true negroid" which for him is "Sub-Saharan". This is the reason why he considers Somalis as having "Sub-Saharan" tendencies even though they ARE Sub-Saharans. All of this was explained by Zarahan many times before. Brace merely skews his clines and clusters in a way to obfuscate the continuity of black African phenotypic diversity. I still remember years ago when I was in high school and research first led me to the conclusion that ancient Egyptians were black, that one of the papers I read was a thesis paper from 1966 criticizing Brace and the inconsistencies in his findings. This thesis was written by the brilliant M.D. and scifi-author Michael Crichton when he was still an undergrad. Crichton details how Brace would cluster Egyptians and other northeast Africans away from other neighboring Africans and instead with Southwest Asians and Europeans. This was done simply because he collected no data from contiguous populations in so-called Sub-Sahara. The only other Sub-Saharan populations he sampled were those of the stereotyped "true negro" in West and Central Africa. It was when Crichton analyzed skulls from Kenya such as the Teita that he found affinities to Naqada crania and Somali crania both as well as affinities to the other "Sub-Saharan" types. If you want to read it you can look up: "A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania," Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.
As for Smiths findings of modern Egyptians' resemblance to Sub-Saharans, well one would think it depended on the samples studied like these Egyptians below.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
The Somali thing is laughable. As Walker (1995) pointed out, any quick comparison of Brace' dendrograms with nuclear DNA studies will reveal a major disconnect. Keita (2005) specifically made Brace look silly. Direct quote:
quote:One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the Nile Valley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity.
--S.O.Y. Keita
Here's Walker chastising Brace over his disingenuous double talk concerning limb proportions:
quote:Reviews of metric, nonmetric, and morphological studies of early southern Egyptian crania reveal that their strongest ties are with groups south of Egypt (see Keita, 1993). The limb proportions are those of tropical people. This is not trivial, considering Brace et al.'s attempt to dismiss it by bringing up the irrelevancy of the limb proportions of south Indians and Australian aborigines. These peoples do not live in Africa, nor do they speak African languages. Limb proportions have been shown to be broadly correlated with climate. Allen's rule is the name given to this observation. Jacobs (1985, 1993), after establishing the timing of cold adaptation in northern Europe, has used limb ratios to help assess migration. Most certainly the purported flow of northern European genes into the Nile Valley (and into Somalia) should have altered limb proportions at the northern port of entry. Instead the limb ratios are "super" tropical.
---Walker (1995)
^Furthermore, Brace' reliance on what he calls "neutrally adaptive traits" have lead to some bazaar conclusions, such as his idea that modern Europeans in the main, are not descendants of Cro-Magnon but rather Neanderthal who were absorbed into the emerging modern human population (a lot of people don't talk about this).
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, Modern Egyptians resemble Sub-Saharan Africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995)
Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Of course there is a resemblance between Modern Egyptians and Sub Saharan Africans you idiot. They are hybrids, which means that they are intermediate between Africans and others.
Nothing any of us have been denying.
The statement above does not say that modern Egyptians are "intermediate" or "hybrid" between SSAs and Eurasians.
The statement above from Patrica Smith with citations from Howells and Keita plainly says that Modern Egyptians have traits, including limb proportions that resemble Sub Saharan Africans no mention of "intermediate" or "hybrid". Perhaps you need to read it again and not try to add things to it.
If you think her study says something about "intermediate" or "hybrid" limb ratios then you will have to quote that. Otherwise shut up
thank you,
L.P.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Where exactly is the claim made that they haven't changed? Have you even read through more than just this snippet?
Since when has "resemble" become a stand-in for "identical" or "unchanged"? You did this before with your lack of comprehension in defining basic terms like "intermediate", which you still believe equates "hybrid". Your general mode of thinking is where there's a disconnect as overall you have what seems to be a very poor education.
P.S. Also, if we are to take your interpretation of the Smith statement at face value, then the "Black" Egypt argument is over since Egyptians haven't changed and are identical to "sub-saharan" Africans. Can't have your cake and eat it too, right?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Do me a favor, and dig up the relevant references, with the relevant meassurements of both Howells and Keita. Your bias shows, in that you will accept anything and any statement that corroborates your views, without checking the references first. But when it comes to things that don't agree with you - like Lower Egyptian predynastic limb proportions vs those of the Levant - all of a sudden you do know how to request and inspect the specific meassurements. <--- The characteristics of someone who is biased and desperate for anything that agrees with their position.
You're afraid to request - or better yet, post - the specifics, because you KNOW it'll amount to just another dead end.
quote:It was when Crichton analyzed skulls from Kenya such as the Teita that he found affinities to Naqada crania and Somali crania both as well as affinities to the other "Sub-Saharan" types. If you want to read it you can look up: "A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania," Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.
When you add this all up, it becomes increasingly hard to think of Brace's behavior as unconcious bias, or unintentional. Which is what I was tending towards, because of his rather comical sequential invocation both the typological approach and the adaptive approach, his criticism of early Anthropologists for finding wandering Caucasoids in East Africa yet hinting towards being a firm subscriber of such concepts himself, without a raised eyebrow of anyone in his team, including himself.
His infatuation with meassurements that involve the nasal region, combined with his reluctance to use African samples that he knows are varied enough to close the gap he envisions between Sub-Saharans vs Ancient Egyptians and Somali's, - a constant theme throughout his studies - the way he calls traits in common with Africans ''trivial traits'', while he uses the words ''ties'' and ''relationship'' when shared traits are shown with people as far off as Norway. His free floating definition of what constitutes Sub Sahara. His find of a ''palpable German'' in his Egyptian series. It's rather ironic that someone who would later become a sci-fi author, corrects his fantastic views.
CB, if you can find the time to DL the referenced Crichton study, that would be great.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Having read both the Smith paper and some of the studies she references (particularly the Keita ones), I think she is misconstruing or misrepresenting studies on ancient Egyptians as pertaining to modern ones. I know for a fact that Keita has never done a study on modern Egyptians despite Smith's claim otherwise.
As for Brace, I suspect he comes from an old school of anthropological thought that over-emphasized nasal traits, and for some reason it's never occurred to him that this approach is outdated. Old habits don't die easily.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Therein lies the problem with Brace. He attempts to utilize 'newer' methods like his 'clines & clusters' yet at the same time rehashing outdated biases like "true negroid" which for him is "Sub-Saharan". This is the reason why he considers Somalis as having "Sub-Saharan" tendencies even though they ARE Sub-Saharans. All of this was explained by Zarahan many times before. Brace merely skews his clines and clusters in a way to obfuscate the continuity of black African phenotypic diversity. I still remember years ago when I was in high school and research first led me to the conclusion that ancient Egyptians were black, that one of the papers I read was a thesis paper from 1966 criticizing Brace and the inconsistencies in his findings. This thesis was written by the brilliant M.D. and scifi-author Michael Crichton when he was still an undergrad. Crichton details how Brace would cluster Egyptians and other northeast Africans away from other neighboring Africans and instead with Southwest Asians and Europeans. This was done simply because he collected no data from contiguous populations in so-called Sub-Sahara. The only other Sub-Saharan populations he sampled were those of the stereotyped "true negro" in West and Central Africa. It was when Crichton analyzed skulls from Kenya such as the Teita that he found affinities to Naqada crania and Somali crania both as well as affinities to the other "Sub-Saharan" types. If you want to read it you can look up: "A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania," Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.
Brace isn't the only person guilty of equating "sub-Saharan Africa" with the "true Negro". I remember someone on another message board claiming that Northeast Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis weren't considered genuine sub-Saharan Africans and that instead the term only applied to the likes of West and Central Africans!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Of course there is a resemblance between Modern Egyptians and Sub Saharan Africans you idiot. They are hybrids, which means that they are intermediate between Africans and others.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
You did this before with your lack of comprehension in defining basic terms like "intermediate", which you still believe equates "hybrid". Your general mode of thinking is where there's a disconnect as overall you have what seems to be a very poor education.
lol moment
.
^^^authentic black Africans
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:CB, if you can find the time to DL the referenced Crichton study, that would be great.
It's supposedly in that Journal though
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Of course there is a resemblance between Modern Egyptians and Sub Saharan Africans you idiot. They are hybrids, which means that they are intermediate between Africans and others.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
You did this before with your lack of comprehension in defining basic terms like "intermediate", which you still believe equates "hybrid". Your general mode of thinking is where there's a disconnect as overall you have what seems to be a very poor education.
lol moment
.
You're in a perpetual state of ignorance, aren't you? Did I equate intermediacy with being hybrid? Let me rephrase that. If one says that a car is a vehicle, does that mean that all vehicles are cars? If I say light skinned North Africans are intermediate because they are hybrids, does that mean that all intermediacy is caused by geneflow?
Also, to birdbrain Lioness. I'm waiting for the specifics meassurements that say modern light skinned Egyptians are not intermediate like all other North Africans.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by L':
quote:CB, if you can find the time to DL the referenced Crichton study, that would be great.
Where did you access it from DJ?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Google scholar is a wonderful resource so if the paper is available then some type of link should show. The only obstacle then would be access but even in that case no link appears, only citation which I believe suggests that this article requires a paid subscription or access through a Harvard-specific credential.
It would be nice to read but only for historical context. Kalonji is right that Brace' insistence is intentional and that he previously ignored such criticism as Keita cites this same paper in his 1990 study on North African crania and uses the same Teita sample to once again debunk Brace in 2005. Brace is a dinosaur.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You're in a perpetual state of ignorance, aren't you? Did I equate intermediacy with being hybrid?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: They are hybrids, which means that they are intermediate
(note: "you're" = "I'm" )
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Don't think you understood Lioness:
Hybrids=intermediate
Intermediate does not necessarily equate to hybrids
quote:^Google scholar is a wonderful resource so if the paper is available then some type of link should show. The only obstacle then would be access but even in that case no link appears, only citation which I believe suggests that this article requires a paid subscription or access through a Harvard-specific credential.
It would be nice to read but only for historical context. Kalonji is right that Brace' insistence is intentional and that he previously ignored such criticism as Keita cites this same paper in his 1990 study on North African crania and uses the same Teita sample to once again debunk Brace in 2005. Brace is a dinosaur.
Oh right lol. Forgot about Google Scholar
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa Is Supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes:
^And what exactly are you trying to say?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': [QB] ^Don't think you understood Lioness:
Hybrids=intermediate
Intermediate does not necessarily equate to hybrids
I see what you are clarifying between larger category, intermediate, and sub category of intermediate, hybrid. However some traits are more dominant than others so you do not always have an intermediate result of a specific trait due to admixture.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Nobody said that a population will be intermediate just because of admixture.
What was said is that If there is a Hybrid population then they will be intermediate.
Hybrid population=admixture
But Admixture doesn't have equate to being a hybrid
This type of reasoning seems beyond you, lol...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Add to that the fact that the dumb Liar still does not know the difference between resemble and identical.
quote:Originally posted by L': ...At least according to DJ.
Where did you access it from DJ?
It was years ago, when I first heard of it. I haven't been able to access the entire paper but only excerpts of it from a 2nd hand source. The paper is quite old so I don't know where you can find a full text version. J-STOR perhaps?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Tried JSTOR, no luck Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Having read both the Smith paper and some of the studies she references (particularly the Keita ones), I think she is misconstruing or misrepresenting studies on ancient Egyptians as pertaining to modern ones. I know for a fact that Keita has never done a study on modern Egyptians despite Smith's claim otherwise.
As for Brace, I suspect he comes from an old school of anthropological thought that over-emphasized nasal traits, and for some reason it's never occurred to him that this approach is outdated. Old habits don't die easily.
It's strange though how Brace one hand criticizes the 'old school' for their biased and outdated ideas while on the other hand is guilty of perpetuating that himself. Perhaps Brace is going through some kind of scholarly identity crisis(?)
quote:Brace isn't the only person guilty of equating "sub-Saharan Africa" with the "true Negro". I remember someone on another message board claiming that Northeast Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis weren't considered genuine sub-Saharan Africans and that instead the term only applied to the likes of West and Central Africans!
Yes unfortunately ignorance is very pervasive indeed. Just look what happened to Iman.
She was one of the first generation of high-profile black supermodels and although attitudes have changed since 1975, she insists that the fashion industry is inherently racist. Then, she was treated as some kind of exotic alien. 'Oh, you're so beautiful,' was one comment, 'you must be half-white.' Her reply? 'I don't have a drop of white blood in me. I'm beautiful because I am black and I am Somali.'
Brandon, maybe you should ask that person from that other message board what he has to say about West Africans like the Fulani and Central Africans like the Tutsi?
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': ^And what exactly are you trying to say?
I'm not trying to say anything. Read the link I provided,it says it all. You like studies, so I figured you would surely like this one.lol
So I repeat, what's your point?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, that study was discussed several times before. I have yet to see the point the Simpleton is making. Let her write what she thinks this study is saying before we rattle her microcephalic mind.
In the meantime, it's funny how she accuses us of jumping at any conclusion or study that we "think" supports our point! LOL Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^ This study is kind of a vindication for Brace is it not? I mean, he knows what he's saying and means it. Go ahead and try to refute it thimble head.lol
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
The thimble is hard at it yall. Please be patient as the thimble is gathering its resources.lol
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by L': [QB] ^Don't think you understood Lioness:
Hybrids=intermediate
Intermediate does not necessarily equate to hybrids
I see what you are clarifying between larger category, intermediate, and sub category of intermediate, hybrid.
The term "Hybrid" is a "sub category" of the term intermediate?
The issue is that you are so slow that you do not understand the difference between being a hybrid causing one to be intermediate as opposed to being intermediate because one is a hybrid (or due to some other reason). Kalonji said hybrids are intermediate not that every one who is intermediate is a hybrid! You do not understand basic cause and effect which is pitiful.
Umm, ok, people there is nothing else to see here. This girl is just not smart.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: ^ This study is kind of a vindication for Brace is it not? I mean, he knows what he's saying and means it. Go ahead and try to refute it thimble head.lol
What do you think Brace said?
Brace stated that narrow features are not the result of admixture, but indigenous.
You do know that R-P25 has its highest frequencies in central Africa but low elsewhere in Africa?
Now, R-M343 in particular is associated with African admixture I wouldn't be surprised if R1b had an independent African origin. Or if it has such high frequencies in central Africa due to genetic drift
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Lioness balances on the edge of retardation. She is just barely maintaining in daily life, mostly unconcious and on auto pilot. If lioness had to conciously think about breathing I think she would forget and kill herself. We should seriously consider to demote Lioness even further from her already good for nothing image, if there are lower ranks available that is. She can't even get the basics right, how is she ever going to get the things that require the combined effort of more than three brain cells?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correct.
R-P25 is associated with people in Central Africa who look like this:
Notice they are of the stereotyped "true negroid" look and not the "Mediterranean/Hamitic Caca-soid" features. They look no different from other Central Africans who don't carry R lineages.
In the mean time R-P25 is found at minimal frequencies in other parts of Africa. So how is this lineage Eurasian?? The only reason why it is being considered a possible Eurasian origin is because it is of the R clade which was traditionally associated with Eurasians. The same is true for mitochondrial M lineages with M1 associated with Africans only while other M lineages are Eurasian. Both Hg R and mt M are Paleolithic in origin meaning they originated around the time when Eurasia was being settled by modern humans from Africa.
It's easy to do the math unless you're a microcephalic simpleton. Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Also, I was reading a most recent article:
quote:We have shown that R-M343 STR haplotypes clearly discriminate between Lebanese and African origins, unlike other common haplogroups, which also are not represented in the African populations. This enables identification of African chromosomes that have migrated to Lebanon. Further, SCD among R-M343 Lebanese subjects is largely confined to African haplotypes. The strong association of the sickle gene with the African R-M343 would suggest the source populations carried a high frequency of both markers. The sickle mutation is very common to African populations unlike R-M343, which is rare in Africa and found mainly in Europe and Asia. However, R-M343 has been found in high concentration in some populations from Central-West Africa where it reaches very high frequencies (up to 95%) in populations in the central Sahel; northern Cameroon, northern Nigeria, Chad and Niger.27, 28 For many centuries African slaves were drawn from those populations and driven across the central Sahara to the Mediterranean ports, a regular trade seems to have been established in the early Islamic era29 and continued until the 1840's29, 30 confined then to the central and eastern basins of the Mediterranean still under Ottoman influence.29 Deviations from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium of diploid SCD in both genders with haploid male African markers in a Wright–Fisher model decay by a factor of 2 per generation. Therefore, an unstructured population would have SCD nearly uniformly distributed among Lebanese R-M343 haplotypes, however the R-M343 SCD subjects were mainly of African haplotypes, and found only among Lebanese Muslims.
--Marc Haber et al., (2010)
The abstract of the paper:
quote:Y-chromosome R-M343 African lineages and sickle cell disease reveal structured assimilation in Lebanon
Marc Haber et al., (2010)
Abstract:
We have sought to identify signals of assimilation of African male lines in Lebanon by exploring the association of sickle cell disease (SCD) in Lebanon with Y-chromosome haplogroups that are informative of the disease origin and its exclusivity to the Muslim community. A total of 732 samples were analyzed, including 33 SCD patients from Lebanon genotyped for 28 binary markers and 19 short tandem repeats on the non-recombinant segment of the Y chromosome. Genetic organization was identified using populations known to have influenced the genetic structure of the Lebanese population, in addition to African populations with high incidence of SCD. Y-chromosome haplogroup R-M343 sub-lineages distinguish between sub-Saharan African and Lebanese Y chromosomes. We detected a limited penetration of SCD into Lebanese R-M343 carriers, restricted to Lebanese Muslims. We suggest that this penetration brought the sickle cell gene along with the African R-M343, probably with the Saharan caravan slave trade.
The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
^ LOL I see you have no answer to Hg R in Africa so you moved on to mitochondrial M1.
But L' has already cited a more recent study by the same author which rectifies its African origins.
Macrohaplogroup M in Arabia Macrohaplogroup M is particularly abundant and diverse in South and Southeast Asia, reaching frequencies above 60% in some regions (Metspalu et al., 2004). However, it is practically absent in western Asia (Quintana-Murci et al., 2004). In Africa, only one autochthonous basal branch of M, named M1, has been detected (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999). In this continent it has a predominant northern distribution. M1 is particularly abundant in Ethiopia (20%). From there, frequencies significantly diminish forming decreasing gradients westwards and southwards. It has been proposed that the presence of M1 in Africa and surrounding Mediterranean areas can be explained as result of two expansion centers situated in East and Northwest Africa which are marked by the radiation of subhaplogroups M1a and M1b respectively (Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007). Although the coalescence age of M1 is Paleolithic it seems that the most important expansions occurred in Neolithic times when the Sahara was a more hospitable region. Some authors consider that the presence of M1 in Africa supports the idea that macrohaplogroup M originated in eastern Africa and was carried towards Asia with the out of Africa expansion (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999), others think that the distribution of M1 in Africa traces an early human backflow to this Continent from Asia (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001; Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007).
In Arabia, M lineages account for 7% of the total and half of them belong to the M1 African clade. M1 frequencies are significantly greater in western Arabian regions than in the East (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). As the majority of the M1 haplotypes in Arabia belong to the East African M1a subclade, it seems that, likewise L lineages, [b]the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards--Vicente M. Cabrera et al. 2009
Keep whining micro!
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
You must really have a vacuum between those two ears attached to your little dented thimble. I thought maybe you might have at least one brain cell attached to two threads suspending it right smack dead in the center of your very little thimble. But no,you don't even have that.lol
You can't even see the point the paper I presented is even trying to make. This is too funny.lol....You two crack me up. It's becoming obvious at this point that you two are desperate for any kind of handout.lol
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:You can't even see the point the paper I presented is even trying to make. This is too funny.lol....You two crack me up. It's becoming obvious at this point that you two are desperate for any kind of handout.lol
The study you posted is less recent than the article posted here before. Not only that, but the author of the article you posted was a co-author in the article Sundjata, Djehuti and I have posted.
Furthermore, an ancestor to M1 in either south Asia or southwest Asia has not been found.
I suggest you see the response Explorer made to Gonzalez et al. 2007 Here
quote:The majority of the resting M lineages found in Arabia has matches or are related to Indian clades. In addition, some M sequences point to rare links with more remote geographic regions as Central Asia, West New Guinea and even Australia (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). Although more ancient connections cannot be discarded, it seems that this rare M component in the Arabian populations could be the result of trade and military links among those regions in Arabia during and after the British role. As all the M lineages found in Arabia belong to haplogroups that have deeper roots and diversities in other geographic regions, its presence in the Arabian peninsula is better explained as external genetic inputs. Therefore, there are no traces of autochthonous M lineages in Arabia that could support the exit of modern humans from Africa across the Bab al Mandab strait.
--Vicente M. Cabrera et al. 2009
Note: The comment on a relationship to Indian clades. Then we have:
quote:Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths.
— Mait Metspalu et al.
Then we have:
Source: Mitochondrial DNA geneflow indicates preferred usage of the Levant Corridor over the Horn of Africa passageway D. J. Rowold Æ J. R. Luis Æ M. C. Terreros Æ Rene J. Herrera (2007)
"In contrast, given the possible East African or South Asian origin, the data of the current study suggests that the Horn of Africa may have been the major intercontinental thoroughfare for M1 in a much earlier episode (late Middle to early Upper Paleolithic)."--Rowold et al. 2007
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
You need to reread your study and compare information from other studies instead of cherrypicking from each one. Your very last statement is even more telling of your desperation to cling on to anything that supports your point of view. In fact in its very essence we may draw more than one conclusion from its very wording.
The fact that M1 is somewhat limited, and a very outlying subclade of M found in East Africa is but one clue.
Either my two rats are in complete denial, or they are surely lost in the maze.lol
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: You need to reread your study and compare information from other studies instead of cherrypicking from each one. Your very last statement is even more telling of your desperation to cling on to anything that supports your point of view. In fact in its very essence we may draw more than one conclusion from its very wording.
Tell me your "conclusion" then. What I get is that The Horn of Africa was the passage M1 traveled through continents. Which the authors state is in contrast to the other lineages studied, as they spread from the Levant Corridor. Simply put, their data supports an Ethiopian origin. This they state clearly in the image I posted.
Which is further supported by Kivislid et al. 2003:
"Also, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India and among non-African mitochondria in general (Ingman et al. 2000; Herrnstadt et al. 2002; Kivisild et al. 2002) suggests that the earliest migration(s) of modern humans already carried these two mtDNA ancestors, via a departure route over the horn of Africa (i.e., the southern route migration [Nei and Roychoudhury 1993; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Stringer 2000])."--Kivislid et al. 2003
The quote I posted is saying the same thing as the above article- i.e., that M1 spread via the Horn of Africa
Lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India is significant...
quote:The fact that M1 is somewhat limited, and a very outlying subclade of M found in East Africa is but one clue.
To address the above:
According to Sun et al.:
quote:A particular case in question is the origin of haplogroup M1, which is mainly found in Northeast Africa and the Near East (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001). This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information. Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, that is, 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations. There is no evidence whatsoever that M1 originated in India.
What we can get from the above is that similarities between haplogroup M1 and the Indian-specific sub-clades of macrohaplogroup M are the result of random parallel mutations because the variations that characterize M1 are not found in M (6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110)
Recall the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India
quote:Either my two rats are in complete denial, or they are surely lost in the maze.lol
You have failed on limb ratios, Haplogroup R1b in Africa, and now you fail here Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by L':
quote:Originally posted by the mentally challenged microcephalic Simpleton:
Either my two rats are in complete denial, or they are surely lost in the maze.lol
You have failed on limb ratios, Haplogroup R1b in Africa, and now you fail here
Indeed. The slow-witted Simpleton in a desperate bid would jump from one topic to another after being debunked.
In the case of phylogenetic clades, she fails to realize that because Africa is the very source of all humanity, naturally Africans would carry the most genetic diversity. It's because of this that many geneticists would often mistake certain clades in Africa as having Eurasian origin simply because either Eurasians carry those lineages OR they in some way resemble lineages carried by Eurasians. Explorer or Charles created an entire thread based on this topic namely hg R1, L, K, F, and mitochondrial M1, N1, U6 etc., I hope someone could dig it up. Anyway, L' I was wondering do you have that passage from Keita about how geneticists should be cautious at naming certain clades of paleolithic origin to be Eurasian when they likely could have easily been African??
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^I agree.
quote:Anyway, L' I was wondering do you have that passage from Keita about how geneticists should be cautious at naming certain clades of paleolithic origin to be Eurasian when they likely could have easily been African??
Is the following what you mean:
quote:The more recent upheavals in the Sudan may also have altered patterns. The social context/circumstances of gene flow must always be considered, and ideally understood. The historical linguistic data reported earlier would apply in the case of maternal lineages as well. It can also be argued that it is not likely that the "northern" genetic profile is simply due to "Eurasians" having colonized supra-Saharan regions from external African sources. It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra- Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.
Source: Keita, 2005 Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, THANK YOU! I've been looking for that for a while but I forgot which paper it came from.
Here are more rural Egyptians.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by L':
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: ^ This study is kind of a vindication for Brace is it not? I mean, he knows what he's saying and means it. Go ahead and try to refute it thimble head.lol
What do you think Brace said?
Brace stated that narrow features are not the result of admixture, but indigenous.
You do know that R-P25 has its highest frequencies in central Africa but low elsewhere in Africa?
Now, R-M343 in particular is associated with African admixture I wouldn't be surprised if R1b had an independent African origin. Or if it has such high frequencies in central Africa due to genetic drift
Sorry... I didn't realize what I was saying when I wrote the above. To my knowledge, hg R1b in Africa has quite some diversity while genetic drift causes a loss in genetic variation. My mistake, just realized that Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The matter of alleged Egyptian similarities to Nubains is irrelevant to the matter of ethnic/ phenotypical continuity in Egypt. Also, there are Nubians and Nubians. Some are very black and negroid, some look more caucasoid, or shall we say Hamitic? Dynastic Egyptians used the former type as the stereotype, and clearly differentiated the Nubians physically from themselves. The unpleasant experience of these negroid nubians at Egyptian colonial hands does not appear to have been vastly different from the experience of other black Africans at later Arab and European hands, which poses the question why black people should wish to be associated with Ancient Egyptians!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Alleged tropical adaptation is also irrelevant, as predynastic Egypt had a tropical climate, supporting lions and hippos and probably ostriches.
Also these undeniably negroid Nubians are found in the land that lies between the Egyptians and the other narrow-featuered populations of Africa, i.e. Ethiopia and Somalia, which rather shows the geographical and ethnic disconnect between Egyptians and Horn Africans.
The image shows Nuba people as captives, not Nubians. Nubian by the way is a cluster name. The Nuba are from central Africa/ South Sudan. Whereas Nubians are usually from Southern Egypt, Northern Sudan.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The matter of alleged Egyptian similarities to Nubains is irrelevant to the matter of ethnic/ phenotypical continuity in Egypt. Also, there are Nubians and Nubians. Some are very black and negroid, some look more caucasoid, or shall we say Hamitic? Dynastic Egyptians used the former type as the stereotype, and clearly differentiated the Nubians physically from themselves. The unpleasant experience of these negroid nubians at Egyptian colonial hands does not appear to have been vastly different from the experience of other black Africans at later Arab and European hands, which poses the question why black people should wish to be associated with Ancient Egyptians!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Alleged tropical adaptation is also irrelevant, as predynastic Egypt had a tropical climate, supporting lions and hippos and probably ostriches.
Also these undeniably negroid Nubians are found in the land that lies between the Egyptians and the other narrow-featuered populations of Africa, i.e. Ethiopia and Somalia, which rather shows the geographical and ethnic disconnect between Egyptians and Horn Africans.
I also wonder if you are aware of how large the African continent is. In all it's diversity in landscapes and climates.
The Nuba region is closer central African, which has a different climate.
For Ethiopia, Southern Ethiopians have different feutures from those at coastal or mountain areas and the North. Are you aware how large the landmass of Ethiopia is, in all its diversity. I guess not.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, THANK YOU! I've been looking for that for a while but I forgot which paper it came from.
Here are more rural Egyptians.
Yes, these are clusters of Nubians!
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
So only the people who look like Mubarak are ''real'' Egyptians?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Exactly. What are you trying to say Ish? The people I posted are non-Arab folks from rural Upper Egypt. What makes you think they are 'Nubian' as opposed to just Egyptian??
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
The image shows Nuba people as captives, not Nubians. Nubian by the way is a cluster name. The Nuba are from central Africa/ South Sudan. Whereas Nubians are usually from Southern Egypt, Northern Sudan.
How do you know these were Nuba? True their features look obviously central to southern Sudanese and some even have the same facial scarring as modern Sudanese but how can you tell the exact ethnicity??
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Ish doesn't realize how self defeating it is to say dark than ave. Egyptians are Nubians. You're playing right into the hands of folks like Rahotep, who've been saying pretty much the same thing here in this thread.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Exactly, How are Southern Egyptians Nubians??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Well some southern Egyptians are Nubians especially since the Egyptian government built the Aswan High Dam and flooded the original Nubian community turning it into Lake Nasser forcing the Nubians to immigrate farther north. However, Nubians are still a minority in Egypt and it is silly to say all black Egyptians are Nubians. There is the a stereotyped difference that Nubians really do tend to be darker in complexion than Sa'idi Egyptians but there are exceptions to the rule so the only way one could really tell is by style of dress and accent.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - Come now, surely by now you must know the game the foreigners in Egypt play. For THEM to be Egyptian, the REAL Egyptians must NOT be Egyptians.
Thus the REAL Egyptian is now a Turk or Turk mulatto.
BTW - How is it that you say the displaced Sudanese moved North and not South?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ When they flooded Aswan by constructing the dam, the Nubians were forced to move. The Egyptian government helped relocate and settle them farther north. Most Nubians settled in Aswan while others settled in more urban areas like Cairo, etc. Ask Ausar about this, he knows more.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Th Southern Egyptians and the Northern Sudanese never called themselves Nubians until occupiers took over their lands. The Nubian is a Invader Term to separate the Founders of Egypt from their heritage and give it to a bunch of Mongoloid occupiers in Cairo and Alexandria.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well some southern Egyptians are Nubians especially since the Egyptian government built the Aswan High Dam and flooded the original Nubian community turning it into Lake Nasser forcing the Nubians to immigrate farther north. However, Nubians are still a minority in Egypt and it is silly to say all black Egyptians are Nubians. There is the a stereotyped difference that Nubians really do tend to be darker in complexion than Sa'idi Egyptians but there are exceptions to the rule so the only way one could really tell is by style of dress and accent.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Exactly. What are you trying to say Ish? The people I posted are non-Arab folks from rural Upper Egypt. What makes you think they are 'Nubian' as opposed to just Egyptian??
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
The image shows Nuba people as captives, not Nubians. Nubian by the way is a cluster name. The Nuba are from central Africa/ South Sudan. Whereas Nubians are usually from Southern Egypt, Northern Sudan.
How do you know these were Nuba? True their features look obviously central to southern Sudanese and some even have the same facial scarring as modern Sudanese but how can you tell the exact ethnicity??
1) the two groups, Nubian and Eyptian are basically the same. Expect for color complexion. In the North you will find lighter complexion, whereas the South holds darker complexion. Of course there isn't a straight line of separation.
2) the Nuba are from South- Central Sudan, and still have cultural patterns as seen in ancient depictions.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Typo correction^. except
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Ish doesn't realize how self defeating it is to say dark than ave. Egyptians are Nubians. You're playing right into the hands of folks like Rahotep, who've been saying pretty much the same thing here in this thread.
I see what you mean, but that is not how I meant it. What I meant to say is that the people depicted aren't Nubians, as people from South Egypt/ North Sudan. But the depiction shows captives from central Africa. It could have been because of a number of reasons they were taken into captivity.
But considering the image it's rather of Central Africans than of Nubians as that other poster and many claim. By that I did not say that the people from North Egypt are any different from those in the South. Since both were similair. And in many ways still are. The composition is complex since there are many tribes. And what I meant by light complected was...In other words we could show these folks images of Nubians and North Egyptians and they would not be able to see a distinction.
... As I go by what was stated by an old Nubian tribe leader, at one point. The Siwa are just another tribe making it even more complex for non-Africans to grasp, living at North down to the South, at Western border of Egypt. And have resided there for at least 10-KY.
But the poster suggested somesort of inferiority complex of this perticular group of people being captured, without understanding that there are more depictions of Asiatics being taken as captives than Central Africans.
The remains of a mighty Persian army said to have drowned in the sands of the western Egyptian desert 2,500 years ago might have been finally located, solving one of archaeology's biggest outstanding mysteries, according to Italian researchers.
Bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring and hundreds of human bones found in the vast desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert have raised hopes of finally finding the lost army of Persian King Cambyses II. The 50,000 warriors were said to be buried by a cataclysmic sandstorm in 525 B.C.
WATCH VIDEO: Take a closer look at a valley of bones that researchers think may belong to the fabled lost army of Cambyses II.
"We have found the first archaeological evidence of a story reported by the Greek historian Herodotus," Dario Del Bufalo, a member of the expedition from the University of Lecce, told Discovery News.
According to Herodotus (484-425 B.C.), Cambyses, the son of Cyrus the Great, sent 50,000 soldiers from Thebes to attack the Oasis of Siwa and destroy the oracle at the Temple of Amun after the priests there refused to legitimize his claim to Egypt.
After walking for seven days in the desert, the army got to an "oasis," which historians believe was El-Kharga. After they left, they were never seen again.
"A wind arose from the south, strong and deadly, bringing with it vast columns of whirling sand, which entirely covered up the troops and caused them wholly to disappear," wrote Herodotus.
A century after Herodotus wrote his account, Alexander the Great made his own pilgrimage to the oracle of Amun, and in 332 B.C. he won the oracle's confirmation that he was the divine son of Zeus, the Greek god equated with Amun.
The tale of Cambyses' lost army, however, faded into antiquity. As no trace of the hapless warriors was ever found, scholars began to dismiss the story as a fanciful tale.
Now, two top Italian archaeologists claim to have found striking evidence that the Persian army was indeed swallowed in a sandstorm. Twin brothers Angelo and Alfredo Castiglioni are already famous for their discovery 20 years ago of the ancient Egyptian "city of gold" Berenike Panchrysos.
Presented recently at the archaeological film festival of Rovereto, the discovery is the result of 13 years of research and five expeditions to the desert.
"It all started in 1996, during an expedition aimed at investigating the presence of iron meteorites near Bahrin, one small oasis not far from Siwa," Alfredo Castiglioni, director of the Eastern Desert Research Center (CeRDO)in Varese, told Discovery News.
While working in the area, the researchers noticed a half-buried pot and some human remains. Then the brothers spotted something really intriguing -- what could have been a natural shelter.
It was a rock about 35 meters (114.8 feet) long, 1.8 meters (5.9 feet) in height and 3 meters (9.8 feet) deep. Such natural formations occur in the desert, but this large rock was the only one in a large area.
"Its size and shape made it the perfect refuge in a sandstorm," Castiglioni said.
Right there, the metal detector of Egyptian geologist Aly Barakat of Cairo University located relics of ancient warfare: a bronze dagger and several arrow tips.
"We are talking of small items, but they are extremely important as they are the first Achaemenid objects, thus dating to Cambyses' time, which have emerged from the desert sands in a location quite close to Siwa," Castiglioni said.
In my personal opinion, I do think there are still descendants alive of these Persians. In Egypt. This includes the genetic cluster/ admixture found in some parts of Egypt Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Ok, Ish I get what you are saying bt don't forget that even the Egyptian Royalty would have displayed features typical of "Central Africans". I had a conversation with a real Egyptian on here not to long ago and even he admited that the Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese Resemble Each other, esp. Egyptians from Luxor Down to Aswan. No Real Egyptian would Deny the Dark Southerners their existance and their Right as Founders of Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Caipira:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
[QUOTE]I understand what you are saying but to me the so called Sudanese and Upper Egyptians have similar looks and variety just the N. Sudanese are Darker the Upper Egyptians are Lighter but they have the same variety. I know that the current cultures of Sudanese and Egyptians are different but duiring Pharonic times this was not the case. Upper Egypt was ruled by Nubians alot during Pharonic times.
Sudanese is a term brought by Invaders like Indians label is here in America.
Southern Upper Egyptians (I purposely wrote Southern since as far southwards as in Sohag there might be some very light skinned Lower Egyptian looking types) are not that different from Northern Sudanese, but that's logical because they live close to each other. There is a gradual change of phenotype in the Nile Valley with rather light skinned types, not much different from Palestinians or Lebanese in the Egyptian Delta and pitch black types in Southern Sudan.
As for the name "Sudanese" being of "non-indigenous" origin, I don't see any why it should be a reason for not using it. There is an internationally recognized country called Sudan with its citizens being called Sudanese and calling themselves that way. If we were to reject it on the ground of it not being of "indigenous origin", we could just as well reject the word French, because it was brought into the region by barbarian Frankish invaders. It just doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Ok, Ish I get what you are saying bt don't forget that even the Egyptian Royalty would have displayed features typical of "Central Africans". I had a conversation with a real Egyptian on here not to long ago and even he admited that the Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese Resemble Each other, esp. Egyptians from Luxor Down to Aswan. No Real Egyptian would Deny the Dark Southerners their existance and their Right as Founders of Egypt.
Jari - Is that YOU!
Oh I am soo proud of you!
Yes, you are quite right, Egyptians AND what we now call Nubians, did share the same VARIED Phenotype.
A little picture spam for you.
Question: Don't they look EXACTLY like AFRICAN AMERICANS???
Of course African Americans are not Egyptians. But they look alike for the SAME reasons.
In their times: BOTH places served as a place of coalescence for Blacks from EVERYWHERE! Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Ok, Ish I get what you are saying bt don't forget that even the Egyptian Royalty would have displayed features typical of "Central Africans". I had a conversation with a real Egyptian on here not to long ago and even he admited that the Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese Resemble Each other, esp. Egyptians from Luxor Down to Aswan. No Real Egyptian would Deny the Dark Southerners their existance and their Right as Founders of Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Caipira:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
[QUOTE]I understand what you are saying but to me the so called Sudanese and Upper Egyptians have similar looks and variety just the N. Sudanese are Darker the Upper Egyptians are Lighter but they have the same variety. I know that the current cultures of Sudanese and Egyptians are different but duiring Pharonic times this was not the case. Upper Egypt was ruled by Nubians alot during Pharonic times.
Sudanese is a term brought by Invaders like Indians label is here in America.
Southern Upper Egyptians (I purposely wrote Southern since as far southwards as in Sohag there might be some very light skinned Lower Egyptian looking types) are not that different from Northern Sudanese, but that's logical because they live close to each other. There is a gradual change of phenotype in the Nile Valley with rather light skinned types, not much different from Palestinians or Lebanese in the Egyptian Delta and pitch black types in Southern Sudan.
As for the name "Sudanese" being of "non-indigenous" origin, I don't see any why it should be a reason for not using it. There is an internationally recognized country called Sudan with its citizens being called Sudanese and calling themselves that way. If we were to reject it on the ground of it not being of "indigenous origin", we could just as well reject the word French, because it was brought into the region by barbarian Frankish invaders. It just doesn't make any sense.
This is true, and even in history textbooks they learn that people from the South are the founders and originators of ancient Egypt.
I also like to add that foreign blacks like AA' s are considered brothers and sisters. And are always very welcomed. This is made very clear!!
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
The Challenge still stands, Rahotep101.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
There is no case to answer. I can't believe zarakhan posted this as though it refutes rather than confirms my claim that modern Egyptians look the same as the ancients. Please note that they are placed directly together. Also note that the Egyptians appear closer to Greeks than negro Africans.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:There is no case to answer. I can't believe zarakhan posted this as though it refutes rather than confirms my claim that modern Egyptians look the same as the ancients. Please note that they are placed directly together. Also note that the Egyptians appear closer to Greeks than negro Africans.
What a dumbass. You obviously haven't read the book, let alone own it. For starters, that is a POOLED SAMPLE, do you know what that means and what it is used for? Furthermore, the Africans at the bottom of the dendrogram are an oddity. Which means the overall arrangement is not lost when they are moved to the top, and that if this dendrogram took a 3D display the oddity would be gone. If you weren't such an ignoramus you would realize the effect of pooling samples and the reason why UNPOOLED dendrograms are much more detailed
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
It doesn't matter if it's a pooled sample, the general picture is still relevant. Negroid Africans occupy an entirely different branch to Egyptians and various Mediterranean caucasoid populations. Modern Egyptians are the same as ancients ones, in any case.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
rahotep you have to explain why the first egyptians looked like the guys below
Q. did the first ancient egyptians look like the guys above
A.yes or no
answer the question
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:It doesn't matter if it's a pooled sample, the general picture is still relevant.
Yes it does matter. They are pooled solely for being Egyptian. Not in regards to morphological traits. As a matter of fact, Keita (1988); Zakrzewski (2002;2004) found the Gizeh series to be morphologically distinct from preceding specimens. Even Kemp says that they are not representative of other Egyptian samples and that they cluster to non African material because of prolonged exposure to admixture.
quote:Negroid Africans occupy an entirely different branch to Egyptians
Didn't I just explain this to you? Answer: yes I did.
quote:Modern Egyptians are the same as ancients ones, in any case.
No they're not. Only a nutjob wacko like you rehashes this statement that reflects your pseudo scholarship
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed more ignorance from Dahotips. He does not know that the category of "Mediterranean caucasoid" once included populations from Sub-Sahara like Ethiopians and Somalis to Indians and Southeast Asians!! Also, no educated person could ever claim that modern Egyptians are the same as their pharaonic African ancestors before the invasions of Persia, Greece, Rome, Arabs, and Turks. Even Egyptologists like Hawass agree that the closest thing to pharaonic Egyptians would be the rural Fellahin of southern Egypt whose pictures we've posted in this very thread already!
This is all quite tiring. The dude is obviously delusional.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Hey, DaHoPit are these men below Mediterranean Caucasians too??
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Rahotep, I will respond to you here in order to avoid destroying the alTakuri's thread:
quote:David Rohl, (1999) a qualified Egyptologist, very much begs to differ. If there were no Eurasians in Egypt, a few things need a lot of explaining... Eg the device on Narmer's Palette of serpent-necked lions with entwined necks, very common in W. Asia. This decoration is often found in Mesopotamia, for example on Elamite cylindrical roll-seals. Such seals were apparently a Sumerian invention, but also appeared in predynastic Egypt.
You are obviously confused. As I said, there was no colonization of upper Egypt by Eurasians during the predynastic. You are using a supposed influence to argue for gene flow when gene flow and influence are not synonymous. Any near Eastern influence is conceivably the result of trade, military and other contacts. If you really wanted to learn you would keep up to date material. Early predynastic crania was evaluated by Keita (2005) wherein it was demonstrated that the predynastic upper Egyptian crania was more affiliated with tropical Africans and not Europeans. This suggests that there was a cultural transfer INSTEAD of gene flow, NOT gene flow and a cultural influence as you imply.
However, you have it backwards:
"He [Gunther Dreyer] concluded his presentation by noting similarities between specific Egyptian and Mesopotamian objects and suggesting that perhaps there is an initial influence of Egyptian writing on Mesopotamia because there are signs on Mesopotamian objects that are **only "readable" from the standpoint of the Egyptian language, but not the Mesopotamian language.** - Mario Beatty, "Too Much Stuff": Recent Finds in Predynastic Egypt"
quote:Another Sumerian/Susianan roll seal appears to feature the White Crown. I can't find a photo but if this drawing's accurate it's far more compelling than the Qustul incense burner...
Most scholar is in agreement that the Qustul incense burner depicts the white crown. What you may perceive doesn't change what is the reality.
quote:From Anthropologist Douglas Derry (1956):
What a dumbass. Why the hell would you rely on something as old as 1950? It 2011 for crying out loud. As Kalonji already pointed you out to the methodological flaws in that study, I will add that the idea that state formation was accompanied by a dynastic race is in no means a accepted hypothesis. It has been rejected for decades now. More recently, in Sonia R. Zakrzewski's 2007 article. State formation was a process that occurred as a mainly indigenous process with only small trickles of gene flow and influences via trade, military and other contacts. More analysis of state formation since 2009 have shown that gene flow was generally restricted to lower Egypt
BTW, I'm sure what you people don't like to hear is that prehistoric west Asians looked like Africans, not the other way around
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:It is often assumed that Egyptian writing was invented under a stimulus of the Mesopotamian writing system, developed in the late fourth millennium BC, that might have come at the time of the short-lived Uruk Culture expansion into Syria. A variety of artistic and architectural evidence for contact between Mesopotamia and late Predynastic Egypt has been found, but none of it can be dated precisely in relation to Tomb U-j. Moreover, **the Egyptian writing system is different from the Mesopotamian and must have been developed independently.** The possibility of “stimulus diffusion” from Mesopotamia remains, but the influence **cannot have gone beyond the transmission of an idea.** A second point *of contrast with Mesopotamia* is in uses of writing. The earliest Egyptian writing consists of inscribed tags, ink notations on pottery, again principally from the royal cemetery at Abydos, and hieroglyphs incorporated into artistic compositions, of which the chief clear examples are such pieces as the *Narmer Palette,* which is probably more than a century later than Tomb U-j. Thus, while administrative uses of writing appear to have come at the beginning—examples from the Abydos tombs include such notations as “produce of Lower Egypt”—the system was integrated fully into pictorial representation. An intermediate, emblematic mode of representation in which symbols, including hieroglyphs, were shown in action also evolved before the 1st Dynasty. These three modes together formed a powerful artistic complex that endured as long as Egyptian civilization.
To be clear, diffusion hypothesis' into the Nile Valley aren't supported. And any influence didn't go beyond the transmission of an idea.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
As you can see, Derry was directly refuted by Zakrzewski's craniometric study on the formation of Egyptian state:
quote:Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods.These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski (2007)
The small scale migration that Zakrzewski speaks of was restricted to lower Egypt Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ No response from DaHoDum is not surprising. Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ I don't think Rahotep even reads the studies presented to him, honestly.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
REcap:
Many of today’s Egyptians are not necessarily representative of Ancients due to outside migration and admixture from European/Arab sources, particularly in Lower Egypt. Some Coptic claims to be pharanoic descendants not supported by DNA studies or cultural history showing heavy Arabization since 900 AD
Modern Copt genetic profile shows substantial Middle Eastern and European elements: [quote:] "Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group.. The bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared with the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former...
The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries..“ ---Hassan et al. 2008. Y-chromosome variation.." Am J. Phy An. v137,3. 316-323
Sub-Saharan DNA B-M60 in Sudan may indicate a link with ancient Egypt: [quote:] "The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation,.. --Hassan 2008
Modern Egyptian population not necessarily representative of the ancients [quote]: "Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times“ – Keita 2005. History in Africa, 2005, 32(1).221-246 "Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006).” -Irish 2009. Dental_affinities_of_the_C-group_inhabitants.. Ec Hi Rev
Nubians more related to ancient Egyptians- [quote]: "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." -Starling & Stock 2007. Dental indicators of health.. AJPA 134: 520-28-
Modern Egyptians a mixed population with European and Arab strands-not identical to ancients: “Classical genetic studies show a high degree of genetic heterogeneity in the modern Egyptian population, suggesting that this population is descended from a mixture of African, Asian, and Arabian stock (Mahmoud et al. 1987; Hafez et al. 1986). Genetic heterogeneity within the Egyptian gene pool is also supported by more recent studies using autosomal STR markers (Klintschar et al. 1998; 2001)." ---Manni et al 2002. Y-chromosome analysis in Egypt, Hum Bio, 74:5, 645-658
Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski (2007)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ this only Y
Today, Copts and many Egyptian Muslims reject Arab nationalism, emphasizing indigenous Egyptian heritage and culture as well as their own unique ethnicity and genetic makeup, which are completely different from those of the Arabs “The Egyptians are a fairly homogeneous people of Hamitic [in Biblical terms, North Africans descending from Ham, the son of Noah] origin. Mediterranean and Arab influences appear in the north, and there is some mixing in the south with the Nubians of northern Sudan. Ethnic minorities include a small number of Bedouin Arab nomads in the eastern and western deserts and in the Sinai, as well as some 50,000-100,000 Nubians clustered along the Nile in Upper (southern) Egypt.
Copts, the native Christian minority of Egypt; estimates of the number of Copts in Egypt range from 5% to 17% of the population. Copts are not ethnically distinct from other Egyptians; they are a cultural remnant, i.e. the Christians who have not been converted to Islam in the 14 centuries since the Muslim invasion. The Coptic language, now extinct, was the form of the ancient Egyptian language spoken in early Christian times; by the 12th century it was superseded by Arabic.
The Akhenaten Gene. Named for the pharaoh who attempted to convert Egypt to monotheism, this autosomal ancestry marker like most of the Amarna family group’s DNA is clearly African in origin. Akhenaten received it from his mother, Queen Tiye. It is most common today in Copts, the successors to the ancient Egyptians. The ancient marker makes a good showing in the Middle East and parts of southern Europe close to Africa, such as southern Italy and Spain. But it is mostly absent in Asia and the Americas, except where brought there by Africans or people carrying some African ancestry. About 1 in 6 Africans or African Americans has it.
The Egyptian Gene. Although not carried in the royal mummies whose DNA has been studied so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin and enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. Quite rare worldwide, it is found in about 1 in 10 Copts, today’s successors to the ancient Egyptians. Less than one percent of European Americans have it, while African Americans preserve it at a rate of three times that of their white neighbors. Oddly, East Coast Indians and Melungeons have it at elevated levels. It is hardly noticeable in Asia, suggesting that it did not form a significant part of the Great Migration of Humanity out of Africa about 100,000 years ago but spread to Eurasian populations primarily from Egypt and the Middle East in historical times.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
There are numerous other comparisons that can be made where modern Egyptians are closer to Asiatics in appearance than Ancient Egyptians
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
